The Election of 1860 & the Road to Disunion: Crash Course US History #18
Articles Blog

The Election of 1860 & the Road to Disunion: Crash Course US History #18

October 8, 2019


Hi I’m John Green; this is Crash Course US History
and today we discuss one of the most confusing
questions in American history: What caused the Civil War? Just kidding it’s not a confusing question at all:
Slavery caused the Civil War. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, but what about, like,
states rights and nationalism, economics – Me from the Past, your senior year of high school you will be taught American Government by Mr. Fleming, a white Southerner who will seem to you to be about 182 years old, and you will say something to him in
class about states rights. And Mr. Fleming will turn to
you and he will say, “A state’s rights to what, sir?” And
for the first time in your snotty little life,
you will be well and truly speechless [Theme Music] The road to the Civil War leads to
discussions of states rights…to slavery,
and differing economic systems… Specifically whether those economic systems should involve slavery, and the election of Abraham Lincoln. Specifically how his election impacted slavery, but none of those things would have been issues without slavery. So let’s pick up with the most controversial section
of the Compromise of 1850, the fugitive slave law. Now, longtime Crash Course viewers will remember that there was already a Fugitive Slave Law written into the United States Constitution, so what made this one so controversial? Under this new law, any citizen was required to turn
in anyone he or she knew to be a slave to authorities. And that made, like, every person in New England
into a sheriff, and it also required them to enforce
a law they found abhorrent. So, they had to be sheriffs and they didn’t
even get little gold badges. Thought Bubble, can I have a gold badge?
Oh. Awesome. Thank you. This law was also terrifying to people of
color in the North, because even if you’d
been, say, born free in Massachusetts, the courts could send you into slavery if
even one person swore before a judge that
you were a specific slave. And many people of color responded to the
fugitive slave law by moving to Canada, which at the time was still technically
an English colony, thereby further problematizing the whole
idea that England was all about tyranny and
the United States was all about freedom. But anyway the most important result of the fugitive slave law was that it convinced some Northerners that the government was in thehands of a sinister “slave power.” Sadly, slave power was not a heavy metal
band or Britney Spears’s new single or even
a secret cabal of powerful slaves, but rather a conspiracy theory about a
secret cabal of pro-slavery congressmen. That conspiracy theory is going to grow in importance,
but before we get to that let us discuss Railroads. Underrated in Monopoly and underrated in
the Civil War. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Railroads made shipping cheaper and more efficient
and allowed people to move around the country quickly, and they had a huge backer (also a tiny backer)
in the form of Illinois congressman Stephen Douglas,
who wanted a transcontinental railroad because 1. he felt it would bind the union together at
a time when it could use some binding, and 2. he figured it would go through Illinois,
which would be good for his home state. But there was a problem: To build a railroad,
the territory through which it ran needed
to be organized, ideally as states, and if the railroad was going to run through
Illinois, then the Kansas and Nebraska territories
would need to become state-like. So Douglas pushed forward the
Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act formalized the
idea of popular sovereignty, which basically meant that (white)
residents of states could decide for themselves
whether the state should allow slavery. Douglas felt this was a nice way of avoiding saying whether he favored slavery; instead, he could just be in favor of letting
other people be in favor of it. Now you’ll remember that the previously
bartered Missouri Compromise banned slavery
in new states north of this here line. And since in theory Kansas or Nebraska could have slavery if people there decided they wanted it under the Kansas-Nebraska Act despite being north of that there line, this in practice repealed the Missouri Compromise. As a result, there was quite a lot of violence
in Kansas, so much so that some people say
the Civil War really started there in 1857. Also, the Kansas Nebraska Act led to the
creation of a new political party: The Republicans.
Yes, those Republicans. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, Douglas’s law helped to create a new coalition
party dedicated to stopping the extension of slavery. It was made of former Free-Soilers, Northern
anti-slavery Whigs and some Know-Nothings. It was also a completely sectional party,
meaning that it drew supporters almost exclusively
from the free states in the North and West, which, you’ll remember from like, two minutes
ago, were tied together by common economic
interests, and the railroad. I’m telling you, don’t underestimate railroads. By the way, we are getting to you, Dred Scott. And now we return at last to “slave power.” For many northerners, the Kansas Nebraska
Act which repealed the Missouri Compromise, was yet more evidence that Congress was
controlled by a sinister “slave power” group doing
the bidding of rich plantation owners. Which, as conspiracy theories go,
wasn’t the most far-fetched. In fact, by 1854, the North was far more populous
than the South – it had almost double the South’s
congressional representation – but in spite of this advantage, Congress had just
passed a law extending the power of slave states, and potentially – because two new states
meant four new senators – making the federal
government even more pro-slavery. And to abolitionists, that didn’t really
seem like democracy. The other reason that many northerners cared
enough about Kansas and Nebraska to abandon
their old party loyalties was that having them become slave states was seen
as a threat to northerner’s economic self-interest. Remember the west was seen as a place
where individuals – specifically white individuals –
could become self-sufficient farmers. As Lincoln wrote: “The whole nation is interested
that the best use be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. They cannot be, to any considerable extent,
if slavery is planted within them. New Free States are places for poor people
to go to and better their condition.” So, the real question was: Would these
western territories have big slave-based
plantations like happened in Mississippi? Or small family farms full of frolicking
free white people, like happened in Thomas
Jefferson’s imagination? So the new Republican party ran its first presidential
candidate in 1856 and did remarkably well. John C. Fremont from California picked up 39%
of the vote, all of it from the North and West, and
lost to the Democrat James Buchanan, who had the virtue of having spent much of
the previous decade in Europe and thus not
having a position on slavery. I mean, let me take this opportunity to
remind you that James Buchanan’s nickname
was The Old Public Functionary. Meanwhile, Kansas was trying to become a state
by holding elections in 1854 and 1855. I say trying because these elections were
so fraudulent that they would be funny, except that everything stops being funny like
12 years before the Civil War and doesn’t get really
funny again until Charlie Chaplin. Ah, Charlie Chaplin, thank you for being in the public domain and giving us a much-needed break from a nation divided against itself, discovering that it cannot stand. Right so part of the Kansas problem was that hundreds of so called border ruffians flocked to Kansas from pro-slavery Missouri to cast ballots in Kansas elections, which led to people coming in from free states
and setting up their own rival governments. Fighting eventually broke out and more
than 200 people were killed. In fact, in 1856, pro-slavery forces laid siege
to anti-slavery Lawrence, Kansas with cannons. One particularly violent incident involved the
murder of an entire family by an anti-slavery
zealot from New York named John Brown. He got away with that murder but hold on
a minute, we’ll get to him. Anyway, in the end Kansas passed two
constitutions because, you know, that’s a
good way to get started as a government. The pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution was the first that went to the U.S. Congress and it was supported by Stephen Douglas as an example of popular sovereignty at work, except that the man who oversaw the
voting in Kansas called it a “vile fraud.” Congress delayed Kansas’ entry into the Union
(because Congress’s primary business is delay)
until another, more fair referendum took place. And after that vote, Kansas eventually
did join the U.S. as a free state in 1861,
by which time it was frankly too late. All right so while all this craziness was going on
in Kansas and Congress, the Supreme Court was
busy rendering the worst decision in its history. Oh, hi there, Dred Scott. Dred Scott had been a slave whose master had taken him to live in Illinois and Wisconsin, both of which barred slavery. So, Scott sued, arguing that if slavery was
illegal in Illinois, then living in Illinois made
him definitionally not a slave. The case took years to find its way to
the Supreme Court and eventually, in 1857, Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney, from Maryland, handed
down his decision. The Court held that Scott was still a slave,
but it went even further, attempting to settle
the slavery issue once and for all. Taney ruled that black people “had for
more than a century before been regarded
as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the
white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully
be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” So…that is an actual quote from an actual
decision by the Supreme Court of the United
States of America. Wow. I mean, Taney’s ruling basically said that
all black people anywhere in the United States
could be considered property, and that the court was in the business
of protecting that property. This meant a slave owner could take
his slaves from Mississippi to Massachusetts
and they would still be slaves. Which meant that technically, there was
no such thing as a free state. At least that’s how people in the north,
especially Republicans saw it. The Dred Scott decision helped convince
even more people that the entire government, Congress, President Buchanan, and now
the Supreme Court, were in the hands of the
dreaded “Slave Power.” Oh, we’re going to do the
Mystery Document now? Stan, I am so confident about today’s Mystery Document that I am going to write down my guess right now. And I’m going to put it in this envelope
and then when I’m right I want a prize. All I ever get is punishment,
I want prizes. OK. The rules here are simple. I guess the
author of the Mystery Document. I already did that. And then I get
rewarded for being right. Alright total confidence. Let’s just read
this thing. And then I get my reward. “I look forward to the days when there shall
be a servile insurrection in the South, when the black man … shall assert his freedom
and wage a war of extermination against his master; when the torch of the incendiary shall
light up the towns and cities of the South,
and blot out the last vestige of slavery. And though I may not mock at their calamity,
nor laugh when their fear cometh, yet I will
hail it as the dawn of a political millennium.” I was right! Right here.
Guessed in advance. John Brown. [buzzing] What? STAN! Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings?
Seriously, Stan? AH! Whatever. I’m gonna talk about John Brown anyway. In 1859, John Brown led a disastrous
raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, hoping to capture guns and then give
them to slaves who would rise up and use
those guns against their masters. But, Brown was an awful military commander,
and not a terribly clear thinker in general,
and the raid was an abject failure. Many of the party were killed
and he was captured. He stood trial and was sentenced to death. Thus he became a martyr to the abolitionist
cause, which is probably what he wanted anyway. On the morning of his hanging, he wrote, “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that
the crimes of this guilty land will never be
purged away but with blood.” Well, he was right about that, but in general, any statement that begins “I-comma-my-name” Meh. And, so the stage was set for one of the
most important Presidential elections in
American history. Dun dun dun dun dun dahhhhh. In 1860, the Republican Party chose as its
candidate Abraham Lincoln, whose hair and
upper forehead you can see here. He’d proved his eloquence, if not his electability,
in a series of debates with Stephen Douglas when
the two were running for the Senate in 1858. Lincoln lost that election, but the debates
made him famous, and he could appeal to immigrant voters, because
he wasn’t associated with the Know Nothings. The Democrats, on the other hand, were
– to use a historian term – a hot mess. The Northern wing of the party favored
Stephen Douglas, but he was unacceptable
to voters in the deep South. So Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, making the Democrats, the last remaining truly national party, no longer truly a national party. A third party, the Constitutional Union Party, dedicated
to preserving the Constitution “as it is” i.e. including
slavery, nominated John Bell of Tennessee. Abraham Lincoln received 0 votes in
nine American states. But he won 40% of the overall popular vote,
including majorities in many of the most populous
states, thereby winning the electoral college. So, anytime a guy becomes President who
literally did not appear on your ballot, there is
likely to be a problem. And indeed, Lincoln’s election led to a number
of Southern states seceding from the Union. Lincoln himself hated slavery, but he repeatedly said that he would leave it alone in the states where it existed. But the demographics of Lincoln’s election showed
Southerners and Northerners alike that slave power
– to whatever extent it had existed –was over. By the time he took office on March 1, 1861,
seven states had seceded and formed the
Confederate States of America. And the stage was set for the fighting to begin, which it did, when Southern troops fired upon the Union garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor on April 12, 1861. So, that’s when the Civil War started, but it
became inevitable earlier – maybe in 1857,
or maybe in 1850, or maybe in 1776. Or maybe in 1619, when the first African
slaves arrived in Virginia. Because here’s the thing: In the Dred Scott decision,
Chief Justice Taney said that black Americans had
“no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” But this was demonstrably false. Black men had voted in elections and
held property, including even slaves. They’d appeared in court on their own
behalf. They had rights. They’d expressed those rights when given
the opportunity. And the failure of the United States to understand that the rights of black Americans were as inalienable as those of white Americans is ultimately what made the Civil War inevitable. So next week, it’s off to war we go.
Thanks for watching. Crash Course is produced and directed by
Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko.
The show is written by my high school
history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. Our associate producer is Danica Johnson.
And our graphics team is Thought Café. Usually every week there’s a libertage with
a caption, but there wasn’t one this week
because of stupid Chief Justice Roger Taney. However, please suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course US History
and as we say in my hometown of Nerdfighteria,
don’t forget to be awesome.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. I love the fact that you pointed out that the states of the North had been tied together economically and formed the basis for the GOP's well base for hundred years. This is overlooked but were it not for this, the states of the Midwest would have been far more pro-Southern because their trade went through New Orleans on flat boats. The Erie canal and the railroads shifted this economic balance and pulled the states into the orbit of New York City, Boston and Philadelphia. It made the northern portions of OH, IN and ILL as well as the upper Midwest states far more viable to settle and ship goods back east and just as the nation was divided north and south, so were ILL, IN and OH. The counties in the Northern parts of these states were often Whig and later Republican and the counties in the Southern portions were often pro-South and Democratic, still relying on the rivers to take their goods to New Orleans. In fact as late as the 1940's, you can still see patterns in say Indiana where rural counties have these Democratic snakes winding their way northward, those literally followed the rivers that feed into the Ohio river and by extension the Mississippi river system.

    An interesting anecdote is that more people actually voted for Republicans in 1858 in ILL but because the legislature had to elect Senators back then and the districts still reflected the 1850 census, Douglas was reelected to the Senate. The population of the northern part of the state had surged largely comprising of New Englanders moving westward throughout the decade and by the end of the decade this growth made the districts skew more towards Southern Illinois and thus more Democratic than the population actually reflected. Protestant New Englanders, facing limited opportunities in their home states that were overcrowded and desiring to live the puritan lifestyle of their ancestors owning small farms moved westward occupying territory that was similar to New England both in climate, soil and other factors. Of course as you mentioned with the Know Nothings, some of these people were also moving to get away from the Irish. This created the very spread of pro-abolition demographics into these Midwest States that fueled the Republican Party's formation and victory in 1860, and indeed it was facilitated by the railroads.

    A slight error, Fremont got 33% of the vote, Lincoln got 39%. Fremont won ever free state except ILL, IN, PA and I think NJ. This meant that ILL and PA became the primary targets to flip in 1860, which Lincoln would do, along with IN and half of NJ's Electoral votes.

  2. It is worth pointing out that the Taney decisions is not only vile it is factually and historically inaccurate. The Supreme Court at the time had 7 Democratic appointees (technically 8 but John McLean had become a Republican), and 1Whig Appointee (Curtis of Massachusetts). The ruling decision was entirely composed of Democratic appointees and it is alleged that Buchanan, influenced the Northern Democratic Justices to side with Taney to "end the issue forever as you say". Of course it didn't, it helped ensure Lincoln's victory in 1860.

    The thing to note though is that if you read the dissents by Curtis and McLean it clearly points out that at the time the constitution was adopted, no less than five states granted citizenship to free blacks or at the very least allowed free blacks to vote including if I am not mistaken, NH, MA and PA. The Constitution granted citizenship to the citizens of the original 13 colonies, thus the US Constitution recognized black citizenship in 1789 when ratified.

    This was also relatively new in the days of Marshall and Story, the Supreme Court had actually freed slaves on many occasions and the state courts had as well. What happens in the 1850's, is that the influence of the slave politics of the day begins to corrupt the judicial system and rather than following precedent or basic history, they begin to engage in what is now called judicial activism, only here it is applied to the advancement of slave interest.

    If judicial restraint had been used, even if they ruled him a slave and thus unable to sue, they would have had to stop there and not gone on to rule on the merits of the case, this was not done. If they had acknowledged that the five states had black voting when the constitution was ratified they wouldn't have been able to make that ruling either since the basis for denying blacks rights and citizenship falls apart at that point.

    Either way you look at it, there is simply no basis for the Dred Scott ruling other than Southern/Partisan influence corrupting the courts.

  3. In the 18th century there was a huge shift in the acceptance of slavery as a practice. Slavery of white Christians by white Christians had long since been abandoned in Europe; there were almost no slaves of this type and had not been since 1000AD. It was only in the 18th century, however, that Christianity began to surmise that slavery in general was bad, and by the early 19th century the cultural transformation was complete. The Southern USA was a holdout, and if they had won the war would have been a very culturally isolated nation indeed.

  4. To be accurate – slavery was never directly threatned in the existing states – only in FUTURE states in the western territories.

  5. And yet the federal troops illegally took hold of a fort and stop all ships to make sure they pay a new federal tariff on cotton. Strange enough many northern congressman and senaters been threatening such a tariff for over a decade or more. Of course they was paid a great deal of money not too by southern land owners group. But then the price of cotton hit rock bottom because the English textiles company had bought extra in the last few years and store them in warehouses to drive down the price for cotton. Cotton rotting on the dock because of such little demand and price so low there was no money to bribe northern congressman so they pass the cotton tariff. And federal troops went down to make sure the southern states pay the new tariff that they said they wouldn't pay. Northern troops came and illegally occupied a abandoned fort on a island in the bay of a state that that had already succeed from the union. So that was the first military invasion of the south. And the northern troops fired cannon shots at ships trying to leave the southern bay without being boarded and the troops taking what the federal government demanded even taking the ship and ships captain and crew. One of the major things the war of 1812 was fought over . That the united states says must to be stopped and then they turn around and do it to a southern state that's no longer part of the united states. The northern troops fires their guns at ships leaving the harbor the southern guns fired just outside their walls. The northern troops order to fire on southern cannons and the people manning them. Southern troops are fired upon and some die. All southern guns open up on fort illegal occupied by northern troops and so war has begun. But did you tell the people this??? NO you didn't but why not?????

  6. St. Louis was a much larger city than Chicago so why did a transcontinental railroad not start there? 1. Douglas was from Illinois and 2. Missouri a slave state might secede creating a problem.

  7. Sooo… The states only seceded from the the union AFTER a man who didn't appear on their presidential ballots won the presidency? You did say that, correct. So yes slavery be was a HOT topic. And for good reason. But the union trying to force the states back into the union is what caused it. So as for "a state's right to what?" Is not a question that has a short answer. But slavery was not the main reason.

  8. From this; sounds more like the Civil War was caused by Republicans trying to shuffle their deck of elects to win in the North and South at once. And ending up losing the national confidence of the South who didn't get a real say in Lincoln's presidency… But if the reason for Civil War was politics, and shifty politics; that would mean changing that instead of slavery… I guess you can't argue with that! Ultimately a good thing. But politics still suck and it's getting worse…

  9. John Green you are full of it, if slavery was the cause of the Civil War why did Lincoln wait until 1863 to come out with The Emancipation Proclamation that free the slaves in the south but kept slavery in the north. If it were about slavery why were not the slaves in the north freed right away. As always the winning side picks their narrative after the war.

  10. @12:42 – THANK YOU! You had the 'proper' national flag of the CSA there. I have lost count of how many IDIOTS – both pro- and anti-CSA – claim that the battle standard of the Army of Tennessee, aka 'The Stars and Bars' or 'The Southern Cross', is the CSA flag. I don't care which side you're on, just do a little digging into the history books. (Yes, I know, some of them are confused as well.)

  11. This would have been a really good video had it not been for all the intrusive silly cartoon slop and pointless gags. The points and examination of the events would have expanded one's understanding of those times- how the 1860 election evolved, and how it affected the politics of those times. Lately, too much History, esp. directed toward students, has been diluted into MTV media values and Disneyesque graphics and and always stressing the personalities of the hyped-up presenters, rather than that of the leading figures in History. Still, the essential historical message remains important for understanding those times and these times, esp. with the upcoming Presidential race.

  12. Wow, it sounds like the courts didn't do their own research when it came to demographics regarding free black males. The whole thing could have been avoided, and if some of the economists who followed Benjamin Franklin's thoughts, then all those plantation slaves could have become low wage workers saving both sides a lot of money, and maybe they could have started a new free life here or re-established ties back to Africa. Wow. Interesting. Still, the war was fought, and I'm glad the Union won.

  13. The Republican Party was founded to anti slavery. The Democratic Party was founded to preserve slavery. Period. Go study your own history.

  14. This is a totally slanted look at the civil war. Lincoln caused more deaths than any war in American history. Lincoln only made the war about slavery years after the war started. He stated he would do whatever it took to keep the union together. His policies stole all the wealth from the south. So the south seceded.

  15. How about states rights to not have to be forced to buy products from the North due to import taxes. Products from abroad had import taxes on them making many items more expensive than goods produced in the North. Remember the south had very little industry other than agriculture so the south had to get finished goods from elsewhere. Putting high tariffs on imports basically forced southern states to "have" to buy from the North which was an irritant. Again remember at this time the states viewed themselves as independent nations more than one big nation which was evident by the money used being printed differently in different states and in the constitution the agreement that travel and commerce between states was guaranteed and equal (sort of like the EU)
    Yes slavery was part of it but since many people in the south who joined the army couldn't even afford shoes, I doubt they put their lives on the line so that a small percent of the population could have big expensive plantations. Also if it was so much about slavery why did the western part of the slave state of Virginia take their slaves and separate from Virginia? Then you have to take and look at Maryland and Kentucky, both slave states that were part of the union. Also what about the lynchings in the North as opposition to the war? Then you have Lincoln himself stating "if he could preserve the Union by keeping slavery he would do it" and the Emancipation Proclamation that only freed slaves in Confederacy states!!
    Your argument that the war was only about slavery and only white teachers teach otherwise falls short if you would just do what a good history teacher should do, research the subject from historical firsthand documents and as many as possible!!!
    All you are doing is regurgitating the leftist talking points and not truly giving a history lesson. What a shame!!!!! I could go further but this should be enough for some to do some REAL research and come to a different conclusion.

  16. So, if the War for Southern Independence was about Slavery, why did Abe Abe Lincoln Not make this clear from the beginning? Essentially not til Jan 1863. In truth, the North cared little about the Negro question and more about the 1 Billion dollar enterprise it profited on. For this, if it was about Slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves already in Northern States such as: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Missouri, and Kentucky. The Moral Highground is easier for the North to justify an otherwise unconstitutional war against its citizens. The South knew it wasn't going to get a fair shake so left. Rightfully so.

  17. The Confederacy will rise again and we will reclaim our land. For we grow tired of the liberals pushing their sick agendas on everyone including innocent children who don't know any better. Down with the yankee invaders and up with Dixie.

  18. Senators represented State governments, and were appointed by them.  That changed in 1913 when the Seventeenth Amendment established direct election of senators.  I don't understand why Lincoln and Douglas debated.  Neither could be elected.

  19. Lincoln's losing the Senate race in Illinois in 1858 is misleading. Senators then were elected by the state legislature so his name was not on the ballot – similarly the name of a British Prime Minister is not on a ballot as Prime Minister but is elected by limited Party members.

  20. lol when a stupid teacher asked me "States right to what"
    I immediately responded with "states right's to govern their own taxes.. states right to not have to pay the federal government for a railroad that didn't benefit them… and slavery was like 4 separate reasons and even a political weapon during the time leading up to the civil wary, and states right to secede from the nation."
    because it wasn't like the south wanted to force the rest of the nation to use slavery…

  21. just some small corrections, this is usa history specifically. it's not american history in general.
    and it's the usa government. there isnt a single american government as the organization of american states is not like the eu. it's just a meeting of american countries, there are no american representatives to make american laws and regulations.
    but hopefully some day our continent will do what europe did….

  22. Why Lincoln was not on the ballot in several states: although we immediately think about this as being due to some sort of election fraud or otherwise underhanded, in fact this was because of the arcane and byzantine procedures of elections in the 19th century. Any chanted it for the presidency in each state had to sensible people publicly declare that they would vote for him in order to receive his name on the ballot. But Lincoln's name was such a pariah in the southern states that no one would publicly announced that they would vote for him. Thus, he didn't make his way onto the ballot in several States.

  23. Always trying to convince yall self it seems! Explain lincoln speeches before the war. What about the 13th Ghost amendment that was brought up, the Corwin Amendment.

    But the 13th Amendment we know now differs substantially from the one first proposed. The initial amendment would have made slavery constitutional and permanent — and Lincoln supported it.

    The Corwin Amendment read as follows:
    No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

    So this puts a hurtin on your slavery bit! AND if you REALLY want to finish lincolns legacy, the feel free to send them all back to Liberia as lincoln had proposed!

    This slavery bit is why most of you a socialist!

  24. You forgot to mention that 7/9 court justices in the case of Dred Scott were Democrat. Kinda misleading to mention Republicanism in that context without mentioning what I just said. Otherwise great work as always.

  25. What's wrong with wanting a society to favor White people? Most Republicans like Lincoln still wanted White societies. I like White societies better than Black ones.

  26. One interesting point is who fought to capture John Brown and was at his hanging. Among that group was several who’d become Generals in the Confederate Army. Crazy right?

  27. WOW, just WOW! John Green you really are a pathetic man. But can't expect any better from a man completely deprived of any thought due to his submission to the humanities. That's why your brother Hank is slightly better than you.

  28. States Rights prevents what Thomas Jefferson warned us about …."Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence." Thomas Jefferson

    States Rights prevented the power grab by the Federal Government, and its growing corruption.

  29. Sorry, this could have been a great video, I'll never know as I only made 20 seconds then paused to say how off topic could you get? And still be wrong.

  30. 1:50 – A British Colony, not an English Colony. All colonies became British with the Acts of Union over 100 years earlier.

  31. Yes, Republicans ended slavery and Democrats fought to keep their rights to own black slaves. Thank you for saying the facts wise sir although I am sure the far left lunatics will still deny it.

  32. Common misconception, the civil war was fought over trad tariffs that disproportionately crippled the south well making the north rich, abolishing slavery was done to destroy the south economically and for NO OTHER REASON Lincoln did not care about the slaves and he would have kept slavery if he could do it and bring an end to the civil war at the same time.

  33. Half way into the war, he was losing, Lincoln finally granted emancipation. The northern states, with their factory workers and indentured servants, so nobly instructed the south on how to ethically treat labor…..

  34. Cool. So Abraham Lincoln A REPUBLICAN freed the slaves. Good. Glad we got that settled!

    Also, the Republican party was founded to eliminate slavery! Epic win for the good guys!

    Sadly, the Democrats have still managed to keep the black man dependent on government handouts. Thank the Democrats in your teacher's union for your lack of a quality education inner city! Keep voting for the promise of longer chains, it's been working SO well for you thus far!

  35. There is only one reason we had the Civil War… Lincoln's determination to invade the south and force the states who voted to secede back into the union. If he had not decided to use force against his dissatisfied countrymen there would have been no war and no 600,000 soldiers killed.
    Everywhere else in the world new nations have been born from an area or section of a country decided to 'secede'. The former states of the Soviet Union, the people of Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, etc.etc.. All the dominions of Canada have the legal right to secede if they ever decide to do so. Even Scotland has the opportunity to separate from Britain if they so desire.

  36. Civil War wasn't about slavery, they were all racist…the North was more developed than the South (who still mostly relied on agriculture etc and hence slaves)….the south was more crazy (and getting crazier) about slavery that the North where black slaves (working for free) would have just cut more n' more into white jobs…Crazy South attacked first and bam, Civil War!

  37. I like that method of refuting that the Civil War was over State’s Rights and not slavery. I think I’ll use it in the abortion debate: “A woman’s right of privacy to choose what, sir?”

  38. President of the United States Abraham Lincoln – Republican. President of the Confederate States of America Jefferson Davis – Democrat.

  39. Me: Huh, why did I dislike this video from 2013, obviously John Green will be anti-slavery–
    John: John Brown might not have been the perfect human being.
    Me: Ah, that's why I disliked it.

    His soul is marching on!

  40. "State's rights to what? Ha, gotcha!"
    To govern themselves rather than having beaurocrats in Washington, who often did not speak on behalf of the South whatsoever, passing dictatorial laws which would gradually chip away at the sovereignty of the "United States." Those words are key. The United States was founded by a "united" coalition of "states" who, in an effort to protect the entirety of the "states", "united" with one another to form a union. If the federal government, which is meant to be comprised entirely of "united states", the "unity" of those "states", does not accurately represent the needs of the people, there stands no reason as to why one or more states can't remove themselves from an environment of what they would consider tyranny.

  41. The Civi War was not about slavery, it was about money and land. lincon only started to say that when he felt bad for slaves people just start to lift that excuse for the civil war. If im wrong point it out i don't care

  42. "The constitution party, dedicated to upholding constitution as it was written IE with slavery"
    …well that sounds familiar.

  43. I thought historians were never supposed to use the term "inevitable." If things are always (or were) inevitable, then there is no reason to study history.

  44. 1)1:00
    2)1:14
    3)1:46
    4)1:59
    5)2:31
    6)3:15
    7)3:44
    8)4:03
    9)4:33
    10)5:56
    11)7:24
    12)7:34
    13)7:56
    14)8:34
    15)9:07
    16)10:34
    17)11:32
    18)12:11
    19)12:30
    20)12:47
    21)12:55
    22)13:37

  45. State rights to, for example, determine whether to be part of union/federation, or not. Or whether to pay extra taxes, or no. And so on…

  46. The north free their slaves and then continued to allow slaves to be brought into their states maybe that’s why there was a little bit of conflict

  47. Ok so when talking about this topic especislly during this time, pleaee stop saying PEOPLE of Color. They were talking about BLACK people not people of color.

Leave a Reply

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