Putting a Minor in History to Work

The creator of this video claims to be putting his minor in history to good use by sharing what the Civil War was really about. I think you know what this is code for. I will try to find out where his minor in history was completed, though I am fairly confident that no one I know will be embarrassed. The one point that does resonate with me having read Edward Baptist’s new book comes at the 3:25 mark when it is claimed that the elimination of slavery was a “deep blow to private property and free enterprise.” Southern slaveholders would have certainly agreed with that claim.

By the way, you don’t really need to watch this video.

[Uploaded to YouTube on September 29, 2014]

CraterThanks for reading this post. Scroll down, leave a comment and join the conversation. Follow me on Twitter and join the Civil War Memory Facebook group for continuous updates and additional links to newsworthy items from around the interwebs. Stay up to date by subscribing to this blog’s feed. You can also check out my recently published book, Remembering the Battle of the Crater: War as Murder.

45 comments… add one
  • GDBrasher Sep 30, 2014

    Of course there are the typical laughable comments here, but the one that I laughed at the most was one from left field: “The abolitionists lived in places like Massachusetts where it was too cold to farm.”

    • Kevin Levin Sep 30, 2014

      Yes, they went there specifically so they would not have to farm. 🙂

    • Bill Oct 3, 2014

      It’s interesting that he mention Massachusetts, I might be mistaken, but my understanding is the first slaves introduced in America came into that state by Portuguese slave traders. For many years slaves were bought and sold throughout the contiguous thirteen colonies, owned by both Christians and members of the First People, or as they prefer to be called, Native Americans

      • Kevin Levin Oct 3, 2014

        A Dutch ship brought 19/20 slaves to Virginia in 1619. By the eve of the Revolution every colony included slaves. That is my understanding.

        • Jimmy Dick Oct 3, 2014

          They weren’t actually slaves. They were not treated like slaves. They were considered to be more like indentured servants. It is hard to define their status, but it does seem that they were not actually slaves.

          • Kevin Levin Oct 3, 2014

            Right. I was providing the quick and easy answer, but as Edmund Morgan has taught us early Virginia was not yet as slave society.

          • Bill Oct 3, 2014

            Anytime people are bought and sold to do another man’s bidding without choice, to me that is slavery, make no mistake about it!

            • Kevin Levin Oct 3, 2014

              But there is an important distinction between indentured servitude and slavery. The former was usually contractual and included a time limit the latter did not unless the owner chose otherwise.

            • Bill Oct 3, 2014

              Do you think for even a second that these poor emaciated souls coming off these slave boats received a contract of indenture, really??

            • Kevin Levin Oct 3, 2014

              I suggest that before you make claims like this that you do a little reading. Once again, I suggest reading Edmund Morgan’s book, American Slavery, American Freedom. It’s one of the most important books on the subject.

            • Andy Hall Oct 3, 2014

              Indentured servitude usually came about as a result of a debt, and was sometimes entered voluntarily. As Kevin notes, it was usually for a specific time period. African slavery in this country, as it developed in the British colonies, was not only for life, but extended in perpetuity down through the generations. These are important distinctions.

            • Bill Oct 3, 2014

              I think your right on target Andy, their were way’s that people were manipulatedinto continued service, sometimes long after their indenture expired, but did eventually break free, not so much with slaves.

  • Nathan Towne Sep 30, 2014

    Why the party flag of the NSDAP (and of course the National flag of the Third Reich)?

    Aside from the foolishness, that type of thing is in extremely poor taste in my opinion.

    • Kevin Levin Sep 30, 2014

      It’s not uncommon to make just this connection within the libertarian/neo-Confederate community.

      • Nathan Towne Sep 30, 2014

        Well, I try to avoid that stuff if possible, but no matter how many times the connection is made, it is rendered no less idiotic.

  • Lee Sep 30, 2014

    Watch out liberal academics. He is here to “unprove” our history.

    Reactionaries love to say the CW was not about slavery. But then they always follow up with how slavery wasn’t that bad. Funny how that is. Same with holocaust deniers. They deny it took place, right as they say how the Jews had it coming.

    Same disease. The root of totalitarian ideologies the world over.

    Sorry for going on a tangent…

  • Lee Sep 30, 2014

    Oh my. He also denies continental drift. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ4xAaRQCsI

    This may be a joke account. A weird meta joke. I hope.

    • Kevin Levin Sep 30, 2014

      A weird meta joke. I hope.

      Even better. 🙂

    • Andy Hall Sep 30, 2014

      I really wish I hadn’t listened to that with the speakers turned up.

    • Andrew Raker Sep 30, 2014

      Based on his views of Antarctica, he must not like penguins.

      But I’m assuming he was a minor in geology and human sexuality too, right?

  • Marian Latimer Sep 30, 2014

    Well, there’s several minutes of my life I won’t get back, including reading the following:

    http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/09/30/case-secession/16447095/

    As for the video, he lost his momentum when he said “unprove.” As for the rest of it, what utter vitriol. Who, incidentally, does he think should be enslaved? Really? Those who disagree with him?

  • Guy Lewis Oct 1, 2014

    I got to liberal Yankee “myffs.” And that’s when I hit close tab.

  • Jerry McKenzie Oct 1, 2014

    Maybe he should have majored in History, but I don’t think that would have expanded his smug, racist, greedy world-view. It might have been better to let him languish in obscurity in a YouTube dystopia. Truth-flavored bias indeed. And speaking of truth-flavored bias: the Cato guy’s editorial in the Detroit News!

  • EK Oct 1, 2014

    Wow, he really understands the concept of abstract, class-based slavery. In my professional opinion, I think he is George Fitzhugh’s ghost. Kevin, if you can find a picture of him, look for a lesion in the side of the head.

    • EK Oct 1, 2014

      Equally embarrassing, though, I just confused Edward Ruffin and George Fitzhugh.

  • Bill Oct 3, 2014

    Most of what the man spoke of is utter nonsense, that being said, I agree with one point; Eliminating slavery was not a priority of Abraham Lincoln upon being elected President, his primary intent was to figure out a way to conciliate the rich industrialist and plantation owners of the north and south and bring them to terms. The powers of above in the south refused to allow him time to negotiate. Lincoln did lean toward the eventual abolishment of slavery, but realistically knew it could not be accomplished during his term when entering office.

    Regarding the Generalship of the Union Army, at the battle of the first Bull Run, Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell was commander of the Union forces, leading recent untrained volunteers from the ranks of civilians into battle; his nemesis, Brig. Gen. J.T. Beauregard, commanded a much better trained force, many of his officers and men were from will trained and equipped militia formed in reaction to the Nat Turner Rebellion of 1831.

    Lincoln’s choice of McClellan to assume the command of the Army of the Potomac was the right choice; McClellan understood the superiority of the Southern Armies ability; wanting to equip and train-up his army of volunteers and go about integrating them into battle. The politicians and their backers of the north wanted the unrealistic, instant defeat of the south, quickly becoming dissatisfied with Lincoln and his General’s leadership.

    The war started in the spring of 1861; Robert E. Lee did not become commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia until 1862. In the meantime U.S. Grant was a Captain, recruiting volunteers. Timing is everything!

    • Kevin Levin Oct 3, 2014

      Eliminating slavery was not a priority of Abraham Lincoln upon being elected President, his primary intent was to figure out a way to conciliate the rich industrialist and plantation owners of the north and south and bring them to terms.

      No, his primary goal was to preserve the Union. How does one “conciliate” plantation owners by ordering the army to force their states back into the Union?

      • Bill Oct 3, 2014

        Yes several states had seceded, but Abraham Lincoln’s intent was to get the two sides to come to terms without force from either side; it was only after the confederate armies blockade of Fort Sumter that Lincoln sent a naval vessel with supplies and troops to the beleaguered garrison that Ft. Sumter was bombarded.

        • Kevin Levin Oct 3, 2014

          Perhaps you can provide some evidence for this claim from Lincoln’s correspondence during this period. Thank you.

          • Bill Oct 3, 2014

            Upon taking office President Lincoln embraced the Corwin Amendment, hoping it would be strong enough to bring the seceding states back. Your Welcome!

            • Kevin Levin Oct 3, 2014

              OK, I think it’s time we ended this thread. Thanks for stopping by.

          • Bill Oct 3, 2014

            Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

            • Bill Oct 3, 2014

              Oh, by the way the above comments posted by me: President Lincolns first inaugural address

            • Kevin Levin Oct 3, 2014

              Thanks for the confirmation.

            • Kevin Levin Oct 3, 2014

              Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.

              This is a reference to slavery.

      • chancery Oct 3, 2014

        Two books by Professor James Oakes, “The Scorpion’s Sting,” which I’ve recently read, and “Freedom National,” which I’m half-way through, strongly argue that encompassing the end of slavery were important political goals for Lincoln and the Republican Party before the war, as well as crucial war aims from the beginning of the war.

        I’m a huge fan of the Cooper Union Speech (and recommend Harold Holzer’s book on the subject). However, I’m becoming persuaded that there was something slightly disingenuous about the insistence of Lincoln and the Republicans that they intended no threat to the existence of slavery in slave states. It might be better to recharacterize their position as intending no _improper_ threat to the existence of slavery. (And I also believe that the slave interests did not intend to tolerate freedom, even in the free states. Lemmon v. People, 20 N.Y. 562 (1860), was heading for the Supreme Court, and there doesn’t seem to be any doubt how Taney would decide it.)

        • chancery Oct 3, 2014

          “was an important political goal”

          O for an edit feature!

        • Bill Oct 3, 2014

          Thank you for sharing your take, I did mention previously that Lincoln envisioned a day when slavery would be eliminated.

  • John Betts Oct 4, 2014

    Well I made it 1.45 minutes into it and then had to shut it off. The stupid just burns too much. The juxtaposition of an image of Lincoln with the Nazi flag doesn’t help his argument, for which I should probably be glad.

  • Brad Oct 4, 2014

    Five seconds is all I needed to listen to this gibberish from a self righteous know-nothing.

Leave a Comment