Lincoln & What Really Caused the Civil War (Pt. 1) | Jeffrey Rogers Hummel | POLITICS | Rubin Report

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Jeffrey Rogers Hummel (professor & author) about Abraham Lincoln, what caused the Civil War and why the North didn’t let the South secede. Jeffrey discusses how the secession of South Carolina changed the beginning of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency and put in motion what became the American Civil War. Soon after taking office Lincoln has to deal with the attack on Fort Sumter. Jeffrey discusses how the true causes of the Civil War are more complicated than just slavery. While slavery may be the main reason for the forming of the confederacy Jeffrey discusses the the impact of the fugitive slave act .According to Jeffrey figuring out what started the Civil War is not as simple as knowing why the South seceded, but also why the North felt it had to maintain the union.

This clip is from our President’s Week special in 2018 where we partnered with Learn Liberty for five episodes about five Presidents.
Watch the full interview about Abraham Lincoln here:

Is the state of US news driving you crazy? Does the coverage of political news rarely seem “fair and balanced”? Serious discussions on US politics is vital to having a healthy democracy. No matter what political party you belong to, we need to be able to hear a variety of political perspectives. Whether you majored in political science or just want to have a deeper understanding of the issues you’ll want to check out this playlist:

To make sure you never miss a single Rubin Report video, click here to subscribe:

Looking for smart and honest conversations about current events, political news and the culture war? Want to increase your critical thinking by listening to different perspectives on a variety of topics? If so, then you’re in the right place because on The Rubin Report Dave Rubin engages the ideas of some of society's most interesting thought leaders, authors, politicians and comedians. The Rubin Report is the largest talk show about free speech and big ideas on YouTube.
Dave allows his guests to speak their minds and his audience to think for themselves.
New videos every week.

******

Dave Rubin's book, "Don't Burn This Book" is now available at:

All art on the set are original works by Caylin Rose Janet.

******

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
Author: Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men

******

[RubinReport]

Watch The FULL interview of “WHO WAS ABRAHAM LINCOLN?” here:
Reminder: Full episodes drop on YouTube on Sundays, but days earlier on rubinreport.com, totally ad free. Direct Messages on weekdays.

[jerrelfontenot]

First of all; I enjoyed the conversation. The south in 1860 was responsible for 70% of US revenue; how did that play into the resistance to secession? I follow the money!

[patmyles]

This is one of the best analysis on the cause of the war that I've ever heard. They were known as "Union" soldiers, not "anti-slavery" soldiers.
My great great grandfather fought for the Union in the 15th KY Infantry Volunteers. Many of the members in the company owned slaves. When the Emancipation Proclamation came out in Jan.1863, all the officers in the company resigned.

[ultimaterankings]

FYI, for those in the South that are still in denial that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery. The Morrill Tariff had not passed in the Senate when 7 of the southern states seceded. The vote, which needed a 2/3 majority to pass, was 25-14 without those 7 southern states or 14 potential votes voting. If they had stayed in the Union, and all voted they could have easily prevented the passage of the Morrill Tariff since it needed 32 votes to pass (60% of 53 votes (39 that voted plus the 14 potential votes, a simple 8-6 against would do)). And the Tariffs set in 1857 were the lowest since 1817. Hence, it was not about tariffs. Or, state rights, since the south only cared about state rights so that they could keep and possibly expand slavery into newly acquired territories. The fugitive slave law in 1950 showed how little the south cared about states rights by forcing the North to help enforce slavery against their state's policy about not having slaves. So grow up -- no one is blaming you -- just some of the adults that lived in the South in 1860.

[liz]

This is one of the more objective views of the civil war I’ve heard, seeing as how the economics were talked about. Personally, I get sick of ppl never touching on the limits the north put on the south, like barring them from selling textile materials internationally, and the north buying those same materials cheap but selling back the textiles made to the south at high prices. It’s my view that the north was partially responsible for making slavery “necessary”. It’s sad I have to say this, but of course I’m not condoning slavery in any way, but I do think it’s unfair to say southerners were just racists who liked enslaving others. I’m a southerner myself and you have no idea how much crap I get from northerners, despite the fact that none of us had anything to do with it. To blame it on racism is ignorant at best. I’m sure some were racists, but the racism was only perpetuated AFTER slavery was implemented as a way of justifying it, and it was perpetuated by elites in power. A reasonable argument can be made that if the north had allowed the south to trade freely and fairly, the south could’ve abolished slavery on its own and much sooner, avoiding war altogether. This may not have been the elites position, I don’t know, but it was certainly the position held by many slave owners. Both sides were at fault in perpetuating slavery for as long as it continued in this country, and reducing southerners to a bunch of racists without bothering to consider the economic hardships that prevented innovation that the north enjoyed is disingenuous. Southerners did understand, after all, that free men worked harder than slaves (which is why we saw an economic boom after the war), but the elites in power wanted to maintain control. And those elites may have abolished the act of putting ppl in literal chains, but they found other ways to put them in figurative chains, and they’re still doing it today with the welfare state.

[VictorLugosi]

Meanwhile Members of the Lincoln project are in the comment section looking for young boys..

[Stephanator]

Finally a nuanced discussion on this topic of history. Thank you for the education.

[GunDrummer]

Different tastes in music actually caused the Civil War

[marcusmoore]

I am amazed at how hard it is for people to acknowledge that the Civil War was about slavery. I respect the interviewee. The south clearly wanted slavery which he acknowledge and the north just didn't give a fuck either way as long as the union stayed intact.

[qzbnbug]

Would the South have seceded without the imposition of tariffs directed at benefitting Northern industry and hobbling southern trade with Europe?

Lincoln's first inauguration speech assured he would not touch slavery if states stayed with the Union.

[rivi]

A strong case against secession is made. The US must preserve the Union

[davidagainstgoliath]

Isn't it possible that there be more than one reason for going to war or to secede?

[ronholland]

The pretext for starting the war then was saving the Union. That was a hard sell. Before the end of the war, ending slavery became the justification. That is an even harder sell, given that slavery existed in some Northern states until after the war. Our union was based on mutual consent, not coercion. When one party left the union because negotiations to settle a dispute failed, the offending party was NOT justified in using force to maintain the bond. Who would agree that a husband that mistreated his wife until she left would save the union by tracking her down, beating her to within an inch of her life, and dragging her back into his bedroom? Greed and lust of power started a bloody and costly war from which the United States will never recover.

[henryphilipbelliIII]

Thank you so much Dave for putting this historian on so many children need to learn this thanks again great content

[cjwells]

This whole thing was about the economy.(cotton), i aint just a whistling dixie.!

[tomjeff]

Read Lincoln’s War by Bensen and Kennedy. And about the European rebellion of 1848. Lincoln had “48-er’s” in his Union army.

[markthornton]

The 1828 Tariff of Abominations was a big reason for secession. It cost John Q. Adams the presidency.

[Actionjack]

A better question is 'was and why' secession popular in the South? It seems there were other longstanding grievances besides slavery which were contributors.

[richhahn]

Maybe this is too simple an explanation, but it seems to me that the South had the legal right (not the moral right) to own slaves. Why were Northern "progressives" meddling in the affairs of the southern states? What right did they have to tell people in a different state, that they couldn't do something that was legal and Constitutional?

That's what I think the cause of the Civil War was. Slavery had to end, but I don't believe it had to be at the expense of over 600, 000 young men who had nothing to do with slavery. I have never understood why Lincoln is revered when he destroyed the Union to save it. A real hero would have resolved the issue without resorting to a Civil War.

[michaelwojcicki]

Interesting discussion and view about the Civil War.