Maybe post all this in a YT comment? Or some of it. Most of the comments criticizing RazorFist are the really stupid LINCOLN GOOD SOUTH BAD variety. He has replied to a few point-by-point refutations in the comments already. It might inspire him to make a Part 2 video.
And about the events leading up to the war...
political power reigned almost entirely within the South
a conspiracy of northern, industrialist, pro-tariff, Hamiltonians in seeking to seize power
sent troops and militants into Kansas to start an insurrection with the population because the settlers didn't want slavery in their state
a desperate attempt to permanently institutionalize slavery, even in the north, where it was illegal in many states
the Jeffersonian Republic ... was already dead by the 1850's
It sounds like instead of states with wildly different value systems vying for control of an empire, having two separate nations would have been better for both sides.
To be honest, his issue is mostly a little bit of lost nuance, and a few perceptive issues, but other than that all I can tell him is that his fundamental point about the video is entirely correct.
None of my criticisms even approach a refutation of that, because he's not wrong.
If any American president in the modern era declared "War Powers" they'd be called a dictator to. In fact, they were. Several US governors enacted the equivalent of "War Powers" by just asserting that a medical emergency gave them unlimited gubernatorial fiat to suspend protests, empty jails, and create massive fines. Some even tried to instantiate intra-state hard borders. These are dictatorial powers. The fact that Lincoln pulled the same shit Cuomo did, tells me that yes these are dictatorial powers.
That's entirely regarding the Civil War itself. Just his War Powers doctrine is dictatorial, and is objectively unconstitutional by every legal analysis. Even FDR, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon never pulled that shit. Even they needed to go to congress to allow them to engage in "Peacekeeping Operations" or to "prosecute foreign conflicts to the benefit of the interests of the US". You can't just declare war powers and claim that you have unlimited authority until you are removed from power by an election. That's some fucking Caesar level rationalization there. In fact, Caesar (formally) had less.
To become literal dictator for 10 years, a Proconsol would have to have his Dicatatorship ratified by the Senate. Caesar only did that after he seized Rome, defeated Pompey, removed most of the Senate, and had Cesareans declare him Dictator Perpetuo well after all public dissent had been crushed, including a kind of cucked Cicero who failed to stop him.
... until he was assassinated 11 days later.
Lincoln had those powers for years.
It sounds like instead of states with wildly different value systems vying for control of an empire,
It was. That's the saddest part. Despite Americans having heroic tales from both sides of the war, there were no good guys. The Constitution was dead with the Dredd Scott decision; Chief Justice Taney and President Buchanan had guaranteed that, even while Kansas burned. The Radical Republicans had no concern for mollifying the political upheaval. The Southern Democrats had no interest in compromising on any issue regarding slavery, and wanted to maintain the political power they'd always had. The Whigs were quickly vanishing, and the only politicians that seemed legitimate were the ones claiming they would explicitly "Do Nothing", regardless of what happened politically.
having two separate nations would have been better, or no worse, for both sides.
I kinda think that if the Confederates had split off, they would devolved into infighting, economically failed, and re-integrated to the union by the time WW1 took place.
I kinda think that if the Confederates had split off, they would devolved into infighting, economically failed, and re-integrated to the union by the time WW1 took place.
Without a navy or access to rail and ports, the South would have been utterly vulnerable to navel blockade, privateers or even pirate action. Their markets were across the biggest stretch of open water in the world. The South would have instantly been made a banana republic, and been at the mercy of any power with a fleet.
The Union would have been fools not to punish the shit out of the confederacy with a trade embargo. It would have strengthened the Union financial centers and consolidated the Union's own domestic market, helping to speed along industrialization.
I do not think that things would have been better for anyone to postpone a conflict.
Maybe post all this in a YT comment? Or some of it. Most of the comments criticizing RazorFist are the really stupid LINCOLN GOOD SOUTH BAD variety. He has replied to a few point-by-point refutations in the comments already. It might inspire him to make a Part 2 video.
And about the events leading up to the war...
It sounds like instead of states with wildly different value systems vying for control of an empire, having two separate nations would have been better for both sides.
To be honest, his issue is mostly a little bit of lost nuance, and a few perceptive issues, but other than that all I can tell him is that his fundamental point about the video is entirely correct.
None of my criticisms even approach a refutation of that, because he's not wrong.
If any American president in the modern era declared "War Powers" they'd be called a dictator to. In fact, they were. Several US governors enacted the equivalent of "War Powers" by just asserting that a medical emergency gave them unlimited gubernatorial fiat to suspend protests, empty jails, and create massive fines. Some even tried to instantiate intra-state hard borders. These are dictatorial powers. The fact that Lincoln pulled the same shit Cuomo did, tells me that yes these are dictatorial powers.
That's entirely regarding the Civil War itself. Just his War Powers doctrine is dictatorial, and is objectively unconstitutional by every legal analysis. Even FDR, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon never pulled that shit. Even they needed to go to congress to allow them to engage in "Peacekeeping Operations" or to "prosecute foreign conflicts to the benefit of the interests of the US". You can't just declare war powers and claim that you have unlimited authority until you are removed from power by an election. That's some fucking Caesar level rationalization there. In fact, Caesar (formally) had less.
To become literal dictator for 10 years, a Proconsol would have to have his Dicatatorship ratified by the Senate. Caesar only did that after he seized Rome, defeated Pompey, removed most of the Senate, and had Cesareans declare him Dictator Perpetuo well after all public dissent had been crushed, including a kind of cucked Cicero who failed to stop him.
... until he was assassinated 11 days later.
Lincoln had those powers for years.
It was. That's the saddest part. Despite Americans having heroic tales from both sides of the war, there were no good guys. The Constitution was dead with the Dredd Scott decision; Chief Justice Taney and President Buchanan had guaranteed that, even while Kansas burned. The Radical Republicans had no concern for mollifying the political upheaval. The Southern Democrats had no interest in compromising on any issue regarding slavery, and wanted to maintain the political power they'd always had. The Whigs were quickly vanishing, and the only politicians that seemed legitimate were the ones claiming they would explicitly "Do Nothing", regardless of what happened politically.
I kinda think that if the Confederates had split off, they would devolved into infighting, economically failed, and re-integrated to the union by the time WW1 took place.
Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus alone puts him as one of the most tyrannical presidents
You'll get no argument from me on that.
this right here
Without a navy or access to rail and ports, the South would have been utterly vulnerable to navel blockade, privateers or even pirate action. Their markets were across the biggest stretch of open water in the world. The South would have instantly been made a banana republic, and been at the mercy of any power with a fleet.
The Union would have been fools not to punish the shit out of the confederacy with a trade embargo. It would have strengthened the Union financial centers and consolidated the Union's own domestic market, helping to speed along industrialization.
I do not think that things would have been better for anyone to postpone a conflict.