The PragerU video “Was the Civil War About Slavery?” has floated around for a few years. The speaker is a bald-headed individual reminiscent of the character in The Outer Limits episode entitled “The Sixth Finger”; however, the advanced intelligence level of the character in the show is not a factor in this comparison. This individual — Ty Seidule — is what many call the quintessential example of “Wokeness” and/or Cultural Marxism. His trusty sidekick, Lloyd Austin (sometimes referred to as “Fat Albert”), went along with much of Seidule’s Soviet-styled agenda as did Elizabeth “Scarecrow” Warren, the fake Indian.
Retired LTC Edwin Kennedy, from Waynesboro, Mississippi, comes from a long line of military men. A defender of Southern history, Kennedy feels Seidule has been reading from the playbook of George Soros, the SPLC, and others on that “team” and that, although he claims to be Southern, Seidule seems to harbor an irrational hatred toward the South, ostensibly to impress the leftist “academic scholars.” Paraphrasing the Brits, “Who in the bloody hell would want to impress those people?”
National Lampoon magazine was published from 1970-1998 (similar to Mad Magazine, but often much coarser). Although the Lampoon was sometimes gross and typically politically incorrect, it was often amusing to anyone who enjoyed sarcasm, facetiousness, and hyperbole. The PragerU video reeks of some of the cartoonish and simplistic articles in National Lampoon but it is intended to be serious. Indeed, the video is myopic and leaves out tons of information—it is a treasure trove for the “useful idiots” of today.
One would think U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and Confederate President Jefferson Davis would know more than anyone what they were fighting for–both presidents said they were not fighting over slavery. In his March 4, 1861, First Inaugural Address, Lincoln stated the “only reason for war” would be to regain the forts to collect tax revenue. Lincoln also said: “We didn’t go to war to put down slavery.” Plus, we have Lincoln’s well-known commentary in his letter to Horace Greeley: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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…”
Davis said: “We are not fighting for slavery; we are fighting for independence.” Many slaveowners voted against secession because of the loss of constitutional protection while in the Union. Why would Lincoln support (and supposedly write) the Corwin Amendment, which would have forever forbade federal interference in slavery? Also, why would the South reject it if that was the casus belli? It is common knowledge that there was sectional disagreement over taking slaves into the western States and that the Republican Party did not want Blacks in that part of the country. As Seward, Greeley, and many others said, the West should be populated by free, White settlers.
The slave labor system was the most productive when it came to labor-intensive crops such as cotton and tobacco. As Austrian Economist Ludwig von Mises, stated, “At no time and at no place was it possible for enterprises employing servile labor to compete on the market with enterprises employing free labor.” If the South had been left alone, there is a valid argument that the basic laws of economics and advanced technology such as McCormick’s Virginia Reaper would have rendered the system unprofitable. There is another argument that the spread or diffusion of slavery westward would have likely hastened its demise–it was generally accepted that slavery was impractical west of Midland, Texas.
Another individual routinely ignored is Massachusetts abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, who stated “On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.” He added, “The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war is a fraud of the same character with that of ‘maintaining the national honor.’ …And why did these men abolish slavery?…because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white.”
Although PragerU would be wise to remove this lampoonish propaganda video and flush into the junk heap of history – don’t hold your breath waiting on that to happen.
Sources: “Letter to Horace Greeley,” Abraham Lincoln Online, at: https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm; The Tennessee Informer’s “Killing Woke at West Point,” at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJfqu3S4hwA; The May 1976 National Lampoon issue on Foreigners would now anger the Thought Police and they would likely try to jail anyone daring to publish such humor.; “No Treason, No. 1, Lysander Spooner,” Mises Daily, March 22, 2011, at: https://mises.org/library/no-treason-no-1; “We are fighting for independence, not Slavery” – August 2, 1864, from Teaching American History at: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/we-are-fighting-for-independence-not-slavery/ — Original Source: Daniel, John M. The Richmond Examiner During the War: Or, The Writings of John M. Daniel. (New York: Printed for the Author, 1868), pg. 215, at: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/loc.ark:/13960/t19k4s22m; Mark Thornton, “The Quotable Mises” from Human Action, at: https://mises.org/library/book/quotable-mises; “The Sixth Finger,” at: https://tubitv.com/tv-shows/200215798/s01-e05-the-sixth-finger; The Taliban destroyed much of Afghanistan’s history—that was an agenda of the French Jacobins, the communists, as well as modern Cultural Marxists who are simply the present version of prior authoritarians. The Corwin Amendment was the Original 13th Amendment.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily those of the Abbeville Institute.
I saw that PraegerU video years ago. I was surprised at the blatant,naked, visceral hatred hatred for the South.
I was very angry about it saying Reconstruction was not long enough. And forcing economically ravaged and in many areas physically destroyed Southern states to deal with the aftermath of the war. ( Millions of newly freed slaves who were unprepared for freedom, and yet were expected to provide public education for them , a large percentage of working age men were dead or maimed physically and psychological by the horrors of war — as well as rhe widows and orphans, the cost to care foe confederate veterans was put on the broke states,, whereas union veterans had full federal support ans the readmitted Southern states had ro.pay toward the union veterans, infrastructure damage, discharge of Confederate debts , i could go on and on)
I have not watched any praeger u material since. I avoid reading anything. By anyone associated withe the organization if i can help it. My dad who held a history degree from LSU was livid ,, he was from New Jersey BTW. Amd my mom (who was a 6th or 7th generation Floridian and thankfully raised us in NJ to know Southern history and to love and appreciate our Deep South heritage, culture and ancestry) was involved in national Republican politics going back to the mid 1960s, could mot believe that they produced it amd put it out there. She was on calls and sending emails to all her contacts who could get word to the organization.
Since the South is very conservative, i am sure PraegerU had quite a few supporters who were upset by this video . And like me stopped supporting the organization. I am sure some financial support wax pulled a directed elsewhere. I cannot believe they purposly alienated their Southern viewers ( and those outside the south who have researched history or are deacendants of Confederate veterans who left the South for economic opportunities that did not exist in the former Confederatacy). I woums be interested to see how this effected their financial support. I know i dont see or hear much from them any more. They have lost relevance to me
I was aware that Prager U. was wrong about ‘The War’. However, to align with a clearcut communist, when one is supposedly a conservative American, reeks of desperation IMO. If Prager were correct about ‘The War’ there would be no need to align with a leftist to gain credibility for one’s point of view. Too bad Stalin is dead, then they could bring him in as well.
I posted a recommendation days after to a previous blog post for what I consider a compendium on witnessed testimonials to Abraham Lincoln and his war.
THE REAL LINCOLN (1925), by Charles L.C. Minor, a Confederate veteran and later career educator. Minor writes in the preface of criticism received for withholding his opinions and, indeed, the body of the text is derived solely, every word, from primary sources – Official Records-War of the Rebellion, biographies, letters and newspapers, etc., of Lincoln’s associates and fellow travelers, all of the north. Originally a pamphlet, the author expanded it for final publication as a comprehensive narrative of Lincoln’s naked treachery. Minor writes also of criticism that he gives “only the bad side of Lincoln”, to which he answers, “the largest measure of every excellence – intellectual, moral, and spiritual – has been claimed for Lincoln, and very generally conceded to him.”
I’ve read a first edition given to my seven years old father in 1929. I’ve read nothing like it since, never seen it referenced. Most within seems lost but it remains a valuable resource for the curious. The guess is Ty Seidule isn’t curious. Inexpensive reprints are available online.
I used 280 sources when I wrote Union At All Costs: From Confederation to Consolidation and one of my best was the book you mentioned–The Real Lincoln, by Charles L.C. Minor.
The politicians you’ve mentioned will say you and Minor are Lost Cause propagandists. Nicolay and Hay, too I guess.
Considering Minor used so many primary sources, he probably would be accused of that. Since, as Jefferson Davis said, the South’s cause was independence, that would probably anger the anti-Southern crowd as well, considering the fact they seem to worship the government. Indeed, government by consent may actually be a lost cause in this world.
Nice turn of the phrase, Mr. Taylor. This writing thing may work out for you.
Malaria was the reason black labor was brought to the New World. West African Negroes mutated a genetic defense deemed “sickle cell”. That’s why those particular blacks were valuable as labor. “Native” Americans, who numbered in the hundreds of millions, did not have a defense against malaria and other Old World diseases. So that “Native” labor force was not decimated (which means to reduce by ten percent) but obliterated…thus creating a supply/demand imbalance. Fortunately for West African chieftains, their excess labor which had previously been SLAUGHTERED OR EATEN became a cash crop after discovery of the New World.
There was no shortage of Caucasians settling in the non-malarial States…the farther north one traveled, the Whiter the population…the farther south…the darker. Most diseases thrive in warmer, wetter climates…malaria, especially.
Bravo, John M. Taylor! Very well said. Thank you.
I normally don’t like to speak ill of someone but it is a crime against academic integrity and objective history that this man was the head of the history department at the United States Military Academy. Robert E. Lee was, in my opinion, West Point’s most distinguished graduate and one of its finest superintendents.
That makes Seidule’s appointment to that post all the more outrageous.
Seidule’s appointment wasn’t outrageous. It was vulgar. Outrage suggests anger. Who can be angry with a fool.
Read his book. No citation of the US constitution to support his contentions save for Article 3, Section 3’s definition of treason. Left out the constitutional prohibition against secession. Oh that’s right, there isn’t one. The Brigadier General also left out the names of all the people who famously argued at each of the 13 ratification conventions that once a State was accepted into the union, it had to have the entire union’s permission to leave. Oh that’s right, there weren’t any. The Brigadier General did cite the Confederate constitution in an unsuccessful attempt at proving General Lee a traitor. But that was it. One might query the Brigadier General as to why we have a written constitution in the first place. If the constitution was written down for the expressed purpose of constraining the general government to only those powers delegated to it and all other powers being reserved to the several States, the Brigadier General’s entire efforts to slander and discredit the war for Southern independence falls flat on its face and merely points to the mental machinations of statist ideologue, a court historian or someone who simply can not read and comprehend at grade level. Which one is it Brigadier General? Your take on history is sophomoric at best, or a case of bearing false witness at worst. I would suggest some remedial homework for the Brigadier General. Perhaps a case study in constitutional law. Article 1, Section 10, Article 4, Section 4, Article 6, Section 2 and the 10th amendment of the constitution would be in order. Then read Elliot’s debates. The works of St. George Tucker, Able Upshur, John Taylor of Caroline to name a few may also light your path to a more accurate understand of what the Confederacy was protecting. A cursory review of 38 US Code would be useful as well. Confederate veterans are AMERICAN veterans by law. And in my humble opinion, everyone them are greater patriots than you have thus far proven yourself to be. 269,000 Confederate Soldier, Sailors and Marines died trying to prevent the imperium we have today. And all you can do is use sophistry to defend that imperium that killed them, burned their homes and stole their wealth. I feel sorry for the likes of you. Just hope you can be honest with yourself one day and figure this out.
Article 3, Section 3 refers to the States in the plural. General Lee never swore to defend the Constitution, that’s the reason the yankees had to change THEIR oath a year into the war and replace loyalty to the States in plural to an Ironclad Oath of allegiance to support the Constitution.
Said Constitution already null and void as yankee States refused to prosecute northerners who had funded an invasion of sister State Virginia by the madman Brown.
As a former army officer myself, I recall some years back, hearing, with amazement, such a propagandized recording as this was, done by PragerU. I was confused how they could allow such a shallow telling of our greatest national crisis as this to get by their editors. I’m glad to finally see it called out.