I was honestly a bit put off by what seemed like rather sweeping and speculative claims right at the outset. But having listened fully, this is a truly inspiring and important talk, not just on the American Civil War, but on America and the unique experiment in democracy our nation represents.
Allen Guelzo, God bless you and your love ones. You’ve mastered the art of revisiting American history with a voice and insightfulness that I can listen to for days n nites at a time. You’re an awesome human being. Take care. Sincerely yours, Joseph L.
I’m really enjoying this, but the title is wrong, it should be something like, “Civil War and the transformation of the United States”. I thought he’d get into the reasons why the war was fought.
I agree with the idea that it proved that Republican government does not necessary end in anarchy, however the point that slavery would have been "re-instated" ignores the economic realities of the institution. Slavery had no chance in a head-to-head contest with Capitalism; every culture that started embracing Capitalism benefited from the Industrial Revolution, and all began to recognized and institutionalize trade for mutual benefit within their laws. Slavery is antithetical to the trader principle and the concept of individual rights that Capitalism requires. It's more likely that the failure of the Union to destroy slavery would have pushed the conflict further into the future, when technology would have made the inevitable war even more bloody...
Then our famous Scot & the father of modern economics Adam Smith resolutely was opposed to slavery. Of course, we are talking of a different era in humanity.
Professor Guelzo is my favorite American historian and interpreter. This 1 hour lecture explains what happened in 1861 when economics and regional differences clashed with philosophy and practical governance. I love Lincoln and i hate war and what a horrible job he was selected to do for the America he believed in. We should never forget the American Civil War and what it proves about preserving democracy.
What does it prove about preserving democracy? Rather it set up unionization and loss of the countries industrial base and thus the very source of its existence.
Is traditional "Liberal Democracy" at stake? I say it has ALWAYS been at stake. Abraham Lincoln understood it was passion that drove the Southern states into armed rebellion. Signifying that certitude has a tendency to lead to violence. Plain and simple, war is awful.
The historic timeline shows that the first secession was declared after the election of Abraham Lincoln and many more followed. Then the violent attack on Fort Sumter. In other words someone's favored candidate for President didn't win so they started an insurrection. Sounds like January 6th of 2020. So i agree with you JM our liberal democracy always has quitters who can't stick to the rules when they feel threatened and don't get their way. Nothing has changed, we are not evolving as a group, and our democratic way of life is always threatened by self-absorbed malignant bad actors. Welcome to our unstable reality.
@@jacobmasters438 The historic timeline shows that the first secession was declared after the election of Abraham Lincoln and many more southern states followed. Then the violent attack on Fort Sumter. In other words someone's favored candidate for President didn't win so they started an insurrection. Sounds like January 6th of 2020. So i agree with you JM our liberal democracy always has quitters who can't stick to the rules when they feel threatened and don't get their way. Nothing has changed, we are not evolving as a group, and our democratic way of life is always threatened by self-absorbed malignant bad actors. Welcome to our unstable reality.
I don't even have to watch it, you just have to look at the outcome. Before the war slaves, after the war no slaves. The south did not lose territory, National repersation, nothing but the right to own slaves.
@@jeffmorin5867He knows more than you apparently. Not only did the declarations of secession nearly uniformly identify the protection of slavery as the reason, they backed that up with teeth in the confederate constitution by abrogating a state's right to limit or control the institution of slavery, and protecting it in the territories going forward. Yeah, Lincoln wasn't originally trying to get rid of slavery in the south. No that doesn't mean the war wasn't about slavery. The southerners were just so batshit nuts on this subject that the mere hint that slavery might be limited in the territories was so unacceptable that they just had to commit violent treason. Also always worth remembering that the confederate political leadership weren't terribly bright, and so them wildly misunderstanding the situation and acting on that misunderstanding would be...exactly in line with things like King Cotton Diplomacy, or the early taxation decisions premised on a short war, or letting the entire west get its teeth kicked in and leaving idiots like Bragg in charge well past the point at which it should've been obvious he wasn't a good choice.
professor Allen GUELZO Many Thanks it's a time for me to be interested by History my Daughter given us a presentation at home before the presentation to gve at school about the nobel Price of litterature Jean marie Le clezio 😟🙁 The specialist speaking about the micro cosme at the border coutries and cultures ☹you can tell me her note at school 18/20 😟😕🧐🧐🧐
A political philosopher, his narrative approaches a sung sermonized story-telling, which formulates his assignment of virtue judging the War history within a context of supporting his world view of a natural morality, irrespective of obvious doubts whether reality conforms to his affirmation of US exceptionalism.
"Whether reality conforms to...?" That is a present tense statement. His discussion of natural morality applied to Lincoln's understanding IN THE PAST, oh, about 160 years ago.
I’m sure the indigenous people that were slaughtered or purposely sickened by the United States, would not consider the 100 years between 1800 to 1900, boring…with or without a civil war. The statement from this history professor that it would have been a boring century without the American civil probably needs to return to the classroom…as a student.
Interesting, never mentioned the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas Nebraska Act, the Free Soil movement and the formation of the Republican Party.
That's cute. How many states mentioned slavery? Did they mention anything else? How many states didn't mention slavery? When and why did those states leave?
@@Rio_Seco roughly 2/3. And for the others, the parliamentary materials are also rather explicit that slavery was the clearly dominating motive. And read the Constiution of the CS, Art. 1, sec. 9, 4.
@@ReinholdMessner-k1j You are incorrect. Not even half the states mentioned slavery. The majority were conditional Unionits who left only after the union started to raise an army making it clear that they would not allow the initial departures. Of those that did mention slavery a host of other long simmering issues boiled over and were also directly mentioned. It's correct to say that slavery was an issue, it's not accurate to say that slavery was the issue.
How cute! The "noble" cause. Have you read the Cornerstone speech of Alexander Stephens from 1861, VP of the Confederacy? Is is there explicitly: slavery, pure and simple. It was a war about money, in this case about an economic system using chattel slavery as basis. The explicit protection in the constitution is also clear evidence.
professor an anecdote my second daughter had also a presentation to give , so inviting her to give the first presentation okay but you can do better repeat again no it's too late repeat again 😳🥺🥺 the day after coming home so happy than ever 18 or 19/20 you can realize that your father has just ambitions for you
At the absolute bottom, it was about money for the South. Even after the end of the Civil War, the South's then leaders were opposed to returning the slaves back to Africa. The South needed the former slaves to work the plantations to compete with Egyptian and other nations cotton. Slavery continued by way of freed slaves being arrested and having to work the cotton fields as punishment. Many former slaves were arrested for being unemployed and put back to work for free in the cotton fields. But the coming of machinery, meant the South was wrong to think that free manual labor could compete. If slaves had cost money instead of making money, do you really think the South would have purchased so many?
Mr. Guelzo: Thank you so much, important information to keep in our minds today. History is important throughout the truth of the facts and the sadness and consequences of the human suffering. God bless all of you for such a wonderful and professional knowledge .
Outstanding orator, ty, big up By the way, Lincoln had a "walk in spirit" from fourth density (it happens occasionally) who lived out the rest of Lincoln's life and carried forth his mission, which he felt too weak to carry out, starting I believe in 1852. And there's a reference to this in Big Bang Theory where Sheldon says, "Can you imagine how history would have turned out if robots from the future (negative extraterrestrials) became involved in the civil war?" Quite a seemingly strange statement; now you know what it means. It's true. Read The Ra Material.
I'm confused, I thought we were a Constitutional Republic? I've always understood our forefathers warned us of the dangers of a pure Democracy. What nation would want 51% of its people ruling over the other 49%? Also why were the Confederacies arguments not discussed? If I were asked who adhered to the Constitution more Lincoln/Northern States or the Southern States I would say the Southern States! The strange notion that a Government could force a person or State to remain part of a Government when that person or State believed they were being mistreated and that the words which defined that Government no longer represented them and/or was a threat to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Many believe the words in the Gettysburg address signaled the end of our Constitutional Republic.
Shilling for traitors after all this time hardly seems necessary. I'm guessing you were emotionally triggered since there was very little logic in your argument. Also, feigned confusion = false humility.
Very interesting, but in describing the American 19th century as otherwise uneventful for some reason you omit the completion of the theft of a continent and a genocide.
@LeePee-yn7bx states, "Very interesting, but in describing the American 19th century as otherwise uneventful for some reason you omit the completion of the theft of a continent and a genocide." LeePee-yn, you need to change lenses. The Native Americans' and the US government's conflicts with them are barely a blip on the American history seismic meter. The conflict makes for great storytelling and myth-making. Except for the Civil War, the American 19th century was uneventful. People were obsessed with commerce as de Tocqueville points put. Example, if you had been heading west after the Civil War, you would have been more likely to encounter a Mexican, Native American, or Chinese person than a European. Patricia Limerick in 'The Rendezvous Model of Western American History," stresses the view of the West as the most ethnically diverse part of the country (NYTimes, Bernstein, Unsettling the Old West, 1990). Another example of myth, there were no gangs of outlaws rampaging through small towns. Why? Because everyone was well-skilled with firearms. That's an American tradition that's been carried forward to today. Once the railroad connected east and west, the Indian Wars ended. You lament the destruction of the Indian culture. It wasn't destroyed. There was no genocide. If what happened to the Indians had been a genocide, they would have been erased from our history but instead they were celebrated. The US government did its best to preserve Native American culture with their well intended reservation system. Europeans did what they could to assimilate Native American into mainstream culture including creating Indian Schools. All of this seems horrible because of today's postmodern worldview of colonization, hegemony, and oppression. That's your lens. Considering that Native American cultures never invented the wheel, attempts to assimilate/acculturate them into the mainstream might be considered noble and merciful and...successful.
@@richardbeck3404, it's a delight to read something so trenchant, so overwhelming in its dispatching of the lunacies of the postmodern, Woke Left. Thank you, Richard.
@richardbeck3404 Genocide doesn't necessitate total erasure, and even if it did my point was just surprise that the Professor relegates completion of it's period to the uneventful category. I obviously don't know your background so can't draw any conclusion, guess another product of the carefully curated subset of history your education system and popular culture provide. "By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 Indigenous people remained, a sharp decline from the estimated 5 million to 15 million living in North America when Columbus arrived in 1492"
@@richardbeck3404 "Europeans did what they could to assimilate Native American into mainstream culture including creating Indian Schools." Indian boarding schools have, at best, a checkered, history. At least according to a 2022 report by the U.S. Department of the Interior. As for the lecture, Dr. Guelzo is always worth reading and listening to. Even if you disagree him. An excellent historian.
An aristocracy of three billion has been erased and replaced by an aristocracy of two and a half million dollars in the Northeast!' Did the speaker ever think of comparing those two numbers? And the three billion the south lost in its investment in slaves was not lost, for all those former slaves became valuable citizens of the South, and it wasn't their fault they, as an asset, were overlooked and devalued by a racist, largely illiterate and poverty stricken post bellum south.
I question that the USA ditched English Common Law and Statute Law after the War of Independence. I understand that you have Habeas Corpus. If you have then it must be based on the 1679 Act of Parliament.
If the question of slave states seceding from a union bent on outlawing long coddled slavery (which had enriched both sides handsomely for decades if not hundreds of years) was considered in the supreme court how would it have been resolved? Slavery, though an odious institution was very much legal at the time. Unconstitutional taking of property rights would result from emancipation legislation. Damages would have been stupendous. The court would likely have had to strike down emancipation. That is why Lincoln stoked the flame of secession and ultimately civil war itself. Through war - he could accomplish emancipation. It was simply a legal work-around/maneuver. There was no other way to abolish slavery and make it stick in the courts?
There was no need to "stoke" the flame of succession. The expansion of the United States and the economic ramifications of slavery vs. capitalism was inevitable. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war time strategy to win the Civil War, not an end in of itself. The war was fought to preserve the Union. Lincoln says this literally. Though many people in the North thought slavery was terrible, they were probably just as racist as Southerners. That generation were the grandsons of people who fought the Revolutionary war. The Union was the only thing of its kind around the world. They fought to preserve it. Notice that AFTER the Civil War, people spoke of America as a "Nation" Before the Civil War people spoke of America as a "Union" Most people didn't think abolition of slavery was possible---but the Civil War was so bloody and raged for so long, people tried everything to win, and to end it. The abolition of Slavery was a CONSEQUENCE of the Civil War. A good and moral one, but originally people wanted to "Save the Union"
Individuals from the North need to understand the experiences of those living in the South. Instead of using academic degrees to try to impose interpretations of the Civil War, take a look at what is happening in America today. Our rights are eroding, and those in power are becoming wealthier by enforcing unjust laws. The topic of enslaved individuals was simply a tool for Lincoln to garner support from the people. This parallels the current situation within the Democratic party. The current influx of illegal aliens crossing our borders is being supported by advocates who are endeavoring to sway public opinion, reminiscent of the strategies employed by historical figures such as Lincoln. The significant concerns regarding the ongoing infringement of rights in the Southern region must not be underestimated. The notion of succession continues to be perceived as a potential solution to this pressing issue. Lincoln was not honest; he was a politician.
There is zero (no, none) connection between Lincoln and the Republican party of his time and the Democrat party of today and its power-centered tyrannies, my friend.
In every single declaration of secession by every single confederate state, within the fist paragraph was slavery…….the war was about slavery. It was the foundation of the economy and the political and cultural hierarchy of that society. That is to say, slavery was the complete foundation of that society. Anyone who says the war wasn’t about slavery is an idiot or ignorant or both.
The Declaration of Causes for Secession of Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia all stated that northern opposition to slavery was a principal cause of their secession. The Florida [confederate] constitution applied only to " free white men". The Confederate Constitution also protected slavery. I have not reviewed the declarations, secession ordinances, or constitutions of all the Confederate states But all the ones l have seen make some reference to slavery, Lincoln's opposition to its expansion, his supposed designs for its abolition or northern interference with "our institutions" as reasons for secession. It seems pretty clear to me that slavery was a major motive for secession, and that "state's rights" was code for the right to expand slavery to every state in the Union. I have seen plenty of historical evidence to support this conclusion. Thanks for listening.
Mostly they are just racist. And you are right-most racists are pretty stupid since (by definition) they deny science. Of course so do lots of nonracists.
Not Virginia. AFAIK Virginia did not have a declaration. They rejected seccession at first, were debating it in their legislation again, and like legislative debates everywhere it was going nowhere. What finally caused them to actually seceed was a combination of Fort Sumnter and Lincoln's demand that they provide troops t fight the seceeding states.
Yeah, Rhode Island and Massachusetts had profited enormously not only from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, but also from doing business with the Caribbean slave industries.
If 51 people want dictate the rights 49 forever then eventually there will be another civil war. The english civil war was a lesson creating checks and balances. Today checks and balances is being challenged.
Every state subscribed to Article VI, subordinating every state to the national government. Each state gave up its sovereignty to the national government whose authority came from the people. Each state gave to the national government its power over war, over international affairs and trade, over citizenship,.
No. Please read Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation which the Federation of States came out of and is a "more perfect union" of. If in doubt, read the Virginia and Kentucy Resolution.
@@warnerchandler9826 The constitution is the more perfect union than the Articles of Confederation. If not, what is the relation that "more perfect " references?
@@FranklinSalazar-u2s Not a scholar here, but, why would it need to refer to the A of C, since the Declaration of Independence starts with, "In Congress, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America..."? The colonies announced themselves as thirteen "united" States before any new national/federal government was organized on paper.
So you're free to join the Union, but not free to leave. Sounds like Hotel California. This guy loves to praise Lincoln for his morality, I noticed he didn't bring up the Corwin amendment.
Apparently joining the union was akin to made man in the Mafia. Once you’ve in there ain’t no leaving. Thats always been a problem for me with this conflict.
@@IsaacBeImont NOT true, there is no such thing as a no escape clause. The Contitution doesn't mention the subject at all, therefore the power resides with the state. The states never delegated to the federal government any power to suppress secession. Therefore, secession remained a reserved right of the states. This is why President James Buchanan, Lincoln's predecessor allowed the first seven Southern states to leave in peace. Free to join, free to leave was a common belief in both the North and South at the time. Lincoln would do anything to keep the Union together. Please read your Constitution and some real history books like "The Real Lincoln".
I mean you can’t just let the states do whatever, if South Carolina had tried to leave the confederacy, do you think that Jefferson Davis would have just let them?
@@IsaacBeImont The Federal government over the last 50 years implemented a program to dumb down the citizenry through the public school system. Your comment is a prime example of the overwhelming success of that program. “You will be ignorant, own nothing and be dumb as a rock.” Quote attributed to people like Claus Swab.
Unfortunately no...we can see know how these ccp lovin commies are bending/breaking/changing laws...the Fed is controlled now...thats why FBI are spying on christians in church and at school board meetings
so they going to take on union because Union . ...? ?...what, if not to do with slavery???? you will wake up the more you study...you just caught up in lost cause myth like millions of others..with closed mind
First off, slavery would never have been reinstated throughout the western hemisphere had not the Union won. Secondly, he argued that the Union victory prevented anarchy when, in reality, the Union effort to win the war, its’ victory, and the aftermath caused the most anarchistic period in American history. There’s a valid argument to say that secession was a victory for democracy. Read the Declaration of Independence, especially “the right to alter, abolish, and institute new government” part.
United states, one nation indivisible, do not have and never have had, since 1789, 'borders' between each other. Some States beginning in 1860 decided they should. They lost. No, every State is NOT a 'border state', contrary to the inflammatory ignorance of a handful of GOP secessionists calling themselves 'governors', who regard the unity of American life as secondary to their own short-term prestige and that of a fat grifter from Queens on whose every word they are more than willing to hang. When, not if, they force the hands of the intricate and complex interagency system of federalism that IS American civilization over the question of what a border is versus a State line, the secessionists will lose again.
@@rowdy9379 Bet all you want, it's not my thing. One side starts shooting, the other shoots back. What is any civil war 'about'? Both sides deciding to have one. What difference does it make? There's still slavery, and there's still States demanding sovereignty. Who says the last one ever ended?
Be comprehensive i am traumatized if you want to support the stateless person in Brussels the wind of change Reunion Fred Ulman Great-grandfather killed civilian by spain 1926 the uncle civilian killed by france algeria 59/60 the grand father evicted 24 HOURS algeria loosing all money buisness 1970 The father evicted at midnight france (corsica) 1970 innocent ( because corisicain dead accident in office ) the father a forced sale Morocco 1982 at 50 % and me forced sale Brussel at 50 % trying to kill many times The truth all the truth i swear
The reason that you have to continually give lectures on the causes of the civil war is because you do not want to hear the grievances that plagued the south. The main reason behind this DENIAL is the slavery issue. That cancels any other reason with good reason. Just study how the South was taxed by the feds. The very reason that American pushed the British out. When the South succeeded they opened all of their ports to free trade. That is all it took for the North to invade. Study the tariff increases in the 1860 election.
It WAS slavery. Period. Every other excuse for the South to both secede and start the war paled in comparison to their hardened attitude toward the unending expansion of slavery.
You've obviously fallen prey to the specious sophistry, "lost cause" bunk eminating from Brion McClanahan. Guelzo would wipe the floor in a debate with McClanahan, on the FACTS..😱🤡
@timothymeehan181 So, it's actually the other way around. You support Guelzo and the righteous cause myth. Guelzo debated Dr. Livingston and he wiped the floor with Guelzo. Lincoln's actions were not heroic. The "Civil War" is a misnomer. The history is popularly taught in narrative form, without specificity and nuance. It's done largely to justify the centralization of power in the US.
It is difficult to understand why the southern slave states who knew that slavery was going to be under assault by moral do gooders from day one under the new democratic government would have entered the contract necessary for the union unless they believed that they retained the right of secession. This right was very explicitly stated in the Declaration of independence. Clearly Lincoln did not understand that part of the document that he regarded as sacred. Guelzo presents a very biased case.
Rebellions ending in session is not what central goverments want. If one part breaks of it really sets a dangerous example, especially as the USA at this time was still expanding and adding new states to the union. Slavery was just the issue , a binary one, that coudl not be compromised on that forced the issue of central goverment vs automony/independence. The USA was offically racist before, during and after the civil war. "God given rights" to exterminate and take over native indians land at the time as an example. The cash crop plantation economy needs slaves way more than industry, farming etc that has acess to millions of immigrant labour need be. As slavery was key to Southern plantation economy and key to Northen views of the USAs democracy and identity it was given hard to agree upon issue. I mean how do you have "half savery" or let soemoen be "obliged to slave 4 months per year"?
@@warnerchandler9826 Here's an example of a demythologized view of Lincoln (which many felt at the time, and many libertarians in the modern era). I think Razorfist oversimplified the Fort Sumter episode a bit (Major Anderson acted on his own when he redeployed from Ft. Moultrie to Ft.Sumter). ua-cam.com/video/-pZG7snE7tU/v-deo.htmlsi=Yk3iPEKUPsEkVfZ1
@@gordonmorris6359 Iasked a question following up on your use if the term "Lincoln's narrative." You answer with a video link where, presumably, someone else lays out what? a different narrative?
@@warnerchandler9826 The link is just a labor saving device for me, it's a complex subject covered sufficiently by others. It's been months since I last saw the original post I commented on (and you replied to recently with your question) and I don't feel like watching it again to delineate the Lincoln bias I claimed at the time.
@@gordonmorris6359 Okay then. I started the vid you linked. I could not take even five minutes of the guy. He is radically unserious. If you have time, I would be legitimately interested in your summary of your point.
"democratic government would have been shown to be incapable of avoiding anarchy when a minority portion of its people decided they no longer wished to abide by its political direction and claimed a popular sovereign right to withdraw." ---as happened in the Revolution; as detailed as a right of man in the Declaration. You putz.
@@warnerchandler9826 well at least it would give everyone an even playing field though you need to have an independent news media something we unfortunately lack.
"What was the civil war about? Why gosh, it was about 4 years long and gave this guy something to talk about." And his lecture only SEEMED like it took four years!
What were the actual causes of the Civil War, in your opinion? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why, after earning multiple degrees, 50 years of study and teaching, and obviously knowing minute details about the war, this professor is wrong about its causes.
So glad someone else knows The TRUTH. He does indeed worship the god of AL. This is called IDOLATRY. He claims to be a Christian. 'You shall have no idols before Me'--
@@pmcclaren1 How refreshing. However, I don't think admiration of the man that ended slavery counts as idolatry. However, snce it sounds like you think the bible is truth, I'm assuming you therefore agree with slavery, since that book is for it?
Allen is an incredible speaker!!! I could listen to him lecture all day long and he certainly knows his civil war facts
Corny I know, but I get chills listening to this fellow. At 81 I guess I am allowed to be optimistic.
Wars have been taking place for thousands of years, do you think they are going to end now? Just accept that 99% of people are crazy.
I was honestly a bit put off by what seemed like rather sweeping and speculative claims right at the outset. But having listened fully, this is a truly inspiring and important talk, not just on the American Civil War, but on America and the unique experiment in democracy our nation represents.
What a great speech. I highly recommend Dr. Guelzo's newest book on American faith, too. Guelzo is an American treasure. Most and truly.
This man is an excellent speaker!
11/30/24. An absolutely incredible lecturer, brilliant grasp of literature. A consummate scholar of the Civil War. A treasure of our time.
I have heard Professor Guelzo in other talks, and he usually has something valuable to say. He also has a beautiful speaking voice and rhythm.
Speaking from the UK - absolutely a top class lecture - brilliantly presented
Excellent presentation. Thank you.
Allen Guelzo, God bless you and your love ones. You’ve mastered the art of revisiting American history with a voice and insightfulness that I can listen to for days n nites at a time. You’re an awesome human being. Take care.
Sincerely yours, Joseph L.
I’m really enjoying this, but the title is wrong, it should be something like, “Civil War and the transformation of the United States”. I thought he’d get into the reasons why the war was fought.
I agree with the idea that it proved that Republican government does not necessary end in anarchy, however the point that slavery would have been "re-instated" ignores the economic realities of the institution.
Slavery had no chance in a head-to-head contest with Capitalism; every culture that started embracing Capitalism benefited from the Industrial Revolution, and all began to recognized and institutionalize trade for mutual benefit within their laws.
Slavery is antithetical to the trader principle and the concept of individual rights that Capitalism requires. It's more likely that the failure of the Union to destroy slavery would have pushed the conflict further into the future, when technology would have made the inevitable war even more bloody...
Then our famous Scot & the father of modern economics Adam Smith resolutely was opposed to slavery. Of course, we are talking of a different era in humanity.
Professor Guelzo is my favorite American historian and interpreter. This 1 hour lecture explains what happened in 1861 when economics and regional differences clashed with philosophy and practical governance. I love Lincoln and i hate war and what a horrible job he was selected to do for the America he believed in. We should never forget the American Civil War and what it proves about preserving democracy.
What does it prove about preserving democracy? Rather it set up unionization and loss of the countries industrial base and thus the very source of its existence.
Is traditional "Liberal Democracy" at stake? I say it has ALWAYS been at stake. Abraham Lincoln understood it was passion that drove the Southern states into armed rebellion. Signifying that certitude has a tendency to lead to violence. Plain and simple, war is awful.
@@jacobmasters438 War was necessary in 1861. Unconstitutional property seizure of enormous scale threatened with Lincoln's election.
The historic timeline shows that the first secession was declared after the election of Abraham Lincoln and many more followed. Then the violent attack on Fort Sumter. In other words someone's favored candidate for President didn't win so they started an insurrection. Sounds like January 6th of 2020. So i agree with you JM our liberal democracy always has quitters who can't stick to the rules when they feel threatened and don't get their way. Nothing has changed, we are not evolving as a group, and our democratic way of life is always threatened by self-absorbed malignant bad actors. Welcome to our unstable reality.
@@jacobmasters438 The historic timeline shows that the first secession was declared after the election of Abraham Lincoln and many more southern states followed. Then the violent attack on Fort Sumter. In other words someone's favored candidate for President didn't win so they started an insurrection. Sounds like January 6th of 2020. So i agree with you JM our liberal democracy always has quitters who can't stick to the rules when they feel threatened and don't get their way. Nothing has changed, we are not evolving as a group, and our democratic way of life is always threatened by self-absorbed malignant bad actors. Welcome to our unstable reality.
I don't even have to watch it, you just have to look at the outcome. Before the war slaves, after the war no slaves. The south did not lose territory, National repersation, nothing but the right to own slaves.
Proof that you know nothing...
slow
@@jeffmorin5867He knows more than you apparently. Not only did the declarations of secession nearly uniformly identify the protection of slavery as the reason, they backed that up with teeth in the confederate constitution by abrogating a state's right to limit or control the institution of slavery, and protecting it in the territories going forward.
Yeah, Lincoln wasn't originally trying to get rid of slavery in the south. No that doesn't mean the war wasn't about slavery. The southerners were just so batshit nuts on this subject that the mere hint that slavery might be limited in the territories was so unacceptable that they just had to commit violent treason. Also always worth remembering that the confederate political leadership weren't terribly bright, and so them wildly misunderstanding the situation and acting on that misunderstanding would be...exactly in line with things like King Cotton Diplomacy, or the early taxation decisions premised on a short war, or letting the entire west get its teeth kicked in and leaving idiots like Bragg in charge well past the point at which it should've been obvious he wasn't a good choice.
You obviously know nothing about reconstruction
@@Jm-Gonz I struck a nerve.
Fantastic.
Loved this presentation..genius!
1:15:07 man…this is so beautifully said. Love ya, Abe!
Thanks. I learned a lot from this lecture.
Excellent lecture but could do without all the ads!!!
UA-cam premium is worth the money. Highly recommend. No ads.
Excellent presentation!.
1:06:21 [democracy] “is not some fragile flower…it has strength that is drawn from the natural order of things…”
Interesting and important. But Why is he making me remember “Thurston Howell”?
professor Allen GUELZO Many Thanks it's a time for me to be interested by History my Daughter given us a presentation at home before the presentation to gve at school about the nobel Price of litterature Jean marie Le clezio 😟🙁 The specialist speaking about the micro cosme at the border coutries and cultures ☹you can tell me her note at school 18/20 😟😕🧐🧐🧐
Professor Guelzo's courses for The Great Courses are very entertaining and informative.
Very interesting this comparison to German unification ❤
An outstanding lecture and Q @ A Session. I will seek out the works of Prof Guelzo.
The trial against Jefferson Davis didn’t affirm this idea of succession as Lincoln saw that point of view
Is it just me or does the professor sound like Thurston Howell III
A political philosopher, his narrative approaches a sung sermonized story-telling, which formulates his assignment of virtue judging the War history within a context of supporting his world view of a natural morality, irrespective of obvious doubts whether reality conforms to his affirmation of US exceptionalism.
"Whether reality conforms to...?" That is a present tense statement. His discussion of natural morality applied to Lincoln's understanding IN THE PAST, oh, about 160 years ago.
I’m sure the indigenous people that were slaughtered or purposely sickened by the United States, would not consider the 100 years between 1800 to 1900, boring…with or without a civil war. The statement from this history professor that it would have been a boring century without the American civil probably needs to return to the classroom…as a student.
How did the United States “purposely sicken” indigenous people?
I'm sure you told him good, master.
Interesting, never mentioned the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas Nebraska Act, the Free Soil movement and the formation of the Republican Party.
Slavery. Just read the Declarations of Independence of the various Southern States, eg Mississippi. They say it explicitly: Slavery. That was it.
That's cute. How many states mentioned slavery? Did they mention anything else? How many states didn't mention slavery? When and why did those states leave?
@@Rio_Seco roughly 2/3. And for the others, the parliamentary materials are also rather explicit that slavery was the clearly dominating motive. And read the Constiution of the CS, Art. 1, sec. 9, 4.
@@ReinholdMessner-k1j You are incorrect. Not even half the states mentioned slavery. The majority were conditional Unionits who left only after the union started to raise an army making it clear that they would not allow the initial departures. Of those that did mention slavery a host of other long simmering issues boiled over and were also directly mentioned. It's correct to say that slavery was an issue, it's not accurate to say that slavery was the issue.
How cute! The "noble" cause. Have you read the Cornerstone speech of Alexander Stephens from 1861, VP of the Confederacy? Is is there explicitly: slavery, pure and simple. It was a war about money, in this case about an economic system using chattel slavery as basis. The explicit protection in the constitution is also clear evidence.
@@ReinholdMessner-k1jthese people are morons.
The democratic foundation concept “Consent of the governed” comes from “made in the image of God”. Deny the latter and lose the prior.
professor an anecdote my second daughter had also a presentation to give , so inviting her to give the first presentation okay but you can do better repeat again no it's too late repeat again 😳🥺🥺 the day after coming home so happy than ever 18 or 19/20 you can realize that your father has just ambitions for you
So, during Sherman's March of destruction, a soldier just casually observes a slave owner going about his business of whipping slaves?
That was amazing!
Good video
At the absolute bottom, it was about money for the South. Even after the end of the Civil War, the South's then leaders were opposed to returning the slaves back to Africa. The South needed the former slaves to work the plantations to compete with Egyptian and other nations cotton. Slavery continued by way of freed slaves being arrested and having to work the cotton fields as punishment. Many former slaves were arrested for being unemployed and put back to work for free in the cotton fields.
But the coming of machinery, meant the South was wrong to think that free manual labor could compete. If slaves had cost money instead of making money, do you really think the South would have purchased so many?
Mr. Guelzo:
Thank you so much, important information to keep in our minds today. History is important throughout the truth of the facts and the sadness and consequences of the human suffering. God bless all of you for such a wonderful and professional knowledge .
Thank you
Guelzo for President.
This is a great 🎉video
Outstanding orator, ty, big up
By the way, Lincoln had a "walk in spirit" from fourth density (it happens occasionally) who lived out the rest of Lincoln's life and carried forth his mission, which he felt too weak to carry out, starting I believe in 1852.
And there's a reference to this in Big Bang Theory where Sheldon says, "Can you imagine how history would have turned out if robots from the future (negative extraterrestrials) became involved in the civil war?" Quite a seemingly strange statement; now you know what it means.
It's true. Read The Ra Material.
I'm confused, I thought we were a Constitutional Republic? I've always understood our forefathers warned us of the dangers of a pure
Democracy. What nation would want 51% of its people ruling over the other 49%? Also why were the Confederacies arguments not discussed? If I were asked who adhered to the Constitution more Lincoln/Northern States or the Southern States I would say the Southern States! The strange notion that a Government could force a person or State to remain part of a Government when that person or State believed they were being mistreated and that the words which defined that Government no longer represented them and/or was a threat to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Many believe the words in the Gettysburg address signaled the end of our Constitutional Republic.
You've obviously never read Lincoln's Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861, or you wouldn't say such silly things...🇱🇷🙏👍
Shilling for traitors after all this time hardly seems necessary. I'm guessing you were emotionally triggered since there was very little logic in your argument. Also, feigned confusion = false humility.
And that government of the corporation , by the corporation , for the corporation , Shall not perish from the earth 😢
Corporate power is horizontal. Political power is vertical.
@@harleylawdude ??
Vote. for Trump...the only non-war president
@@icebirdz Kennedy 2024❤️❤️❤️
Trump is the worst candidate ever.
1:05:45 “…in a democracy you expect crisis…”
Very interesting, but in describing the American 19th century as otherwise uneventful for some reason you omit the completion of the theft of a continent and a genocide.
@LeePee-yn7bx states, "Very interesting, but in describing the American 19th century as otherwise uneventful for some reason you omit the completion of the theft of a continent and a genocide." LeePee-yn, you need to change lenses. The Native Americans' and the US government's conflicts with them are barely a blip on the American history seismic meter. The conflict makes for great storytelling and myth-making. Except for the Civil War, the American 19th century was uneventful. People were obsessed with commerce as de Tocqueville points put. Example, if you had been heading west after the Civil War, you would have been more likely to encounter a Mexican, Native American, or Chinese person than a European. Patricia Limerick in 'The Rendezvous Model of Western American History," stresses the view of the West as the most ethnically diverse part of the country (NYTimes, Bernstein, Unsettling the Old West, 1990). Another example of myth, there were no gangs of outlaws rampaging through small towns. Why? Because everyone was well-skilled with firearms. That's an American tradition that's been carried forward to today. Once the railroad connected east and west, the Indian Wars ended. You lament the destruction of the Indian culture. It wasn't destroyed. There was no genocide. If what happened to the Indians had been a genocide, they would have been erased from our history but instead they were celebrated. The US government did its best to preserve Native American culture with their well intended reservation system. Europeans did what they could to assimilate Native American into mainstream culture including creating Indian Schools. All of this seems horrible because of today's postmodern worldview of colonization, hegemony, and oppression. That's your lens. Considering that Native American cultures never invented the wheel, attempts to assimilate/acculturate them into the mainstream might be considered noble and merciful and...successful.
@@richardbeck3404, it's a delight to read something so trenchant, so overwhelming in its dispatching of the lunacies of the postmodern, Woke Left.
Thank you, Richard.
@richardbeck3404 Genocide doesn't necessitate total erasure, and even if it did my point was just surprise that the Professor relegates completion of it's period to the uneventful category.
I obviously don't know your background so can't draw any conclusion, guess another product of the carefully curated subset of history your education system and popular culture provide.
"By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 Indigenous people remained, a sharp decline from the estimated 5 million to 15 million living in North America when Columbus arrived in 1492"
@@richardbeck3404 "Europeans did what they could to assimilate Native American into mainstream culture including creating Indian Schools." Indian boarding schools have, at best, a checkered, history. At least according to a 2022 report by the U.S. Department of the Interior. As for the lecture, Dr. Guelzo is always worth reading and listening to. Even if you disagree him. An excellent historian.
AH stated he used American 19th century genocide as the model for his plans in eastern europe.
What a beautiful talk...thank you
An aristocracy of three billion has been erased and replaced by an aristocracy of two and a half million dollars in the Northeast!'
Did the speaker ever think of comparing those two numbers? And the three billion the south lost in its investment in slaves was not lost, for all those former slaves became valuable citizens of the South, and it wasn't their fault they, as an asset, were overlooked and devalued by a racist, largely illiterate and poverty stricken post bellum south.
I question that the USA ditched English Common Law and Statute Law after the War of Independence.
I understand that you have Habeas Corpus. If you have then it must be based on the 1679 Act of Parliament.
If the question of slave states seceding from a union bent on outlawing long coddled slavery (which had enriched both sides handsomely for decades if not hundreds of years) was considered in the supreme court how would it have been resolved? Slavery, though an odious institution was very much legal at the time. Unconstitutional taking of property rights would result from emancipation legislation. Damages would have been stupendous. The court would likely have had to strike down emancipation. That is why Lincoln stoked the flame of secession and ultimately civil war itself. Through war - he could accomplish emancipation. It was simply a legal work-around/maneuver. There was no other way to abolish slavery and make it stick in the courts?
There was no need to "stoke" the flame of succession. The expansion of the United States and the economic ramifications of slavery vs. capitalism was inevitable. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war time strategy to win the Civil War, not an end in of itself. The war was fought to preserve the Union. Lincoln says this literally. Though many people in the North thought slavery was terrible, they were probably just as racist as Southerners. That generation were the grandsons of people who fought the Revolutionary war. The Union was the only thing of its kind around the world. They fought to preserve it. Notice that AFTER the Civil War, people spoke of America as a "Nation" Before the Civil War people spoke of America as a "Union"
Most people didn't think abolition of slavery was possible---but the Civil War was so bloody and raged for so long, people tried everything to win, and to end it. The abolition of Slavery was a CONSEQUENCE of the Civil War. A good and moral one, but originally people wanted to "Save the Union"
It was already decided, Dred Scott.
Individuals from the North need to understand the experiences of those living in the South. Instead of using academic degrees to try to impose interpretations of the Civil War, take a look at what is happening in America today. Our rights are eroding, and those in power are becoming wealthier by enforcing unjust laws.
The topic of enslaved individuals was simply a tool for Lincoln to garner support from the people. This parallels the current situation within the Democratic party.
The current influx of illegal aliens crossing our borders is being supported by advocates who are endeavoring to sway public opinion, reminiscent of the strategies employed by historical figures such as Lincoln.
The significant concerns regarding the ongoing infringement of rights in the Southern region must not be underestimated. The notion of succession continues to be perceived as a potential solution to this pressing issue. Lincoln was not honest; he was a politician.
There is zero (no, none) connection between Lincoln and the Republican party of his time and the Democrat party of today and its power-centered tyrannies, my friend.
In every single declaration of secession by every single confederate state, within the fist paragraph was slavery…….the war was about slavery. It was the foundation of the economy and the political and cultural hierarchy of that society. That is to say, slavery was the complete foundation of that society.
Anyone who says the war wasn’t about slavery is an idiot or ignorant or both.
Your first sentence is factually incorrect. What you follow with is hollow emotion prejudiced against truth.
The Declaration of Causes for Secession of Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia all stated that northern opposition to slavery was a principal cause of their secession. The Florida [confederate] constitution applied only to " free white men". The Confederate Constitution also protected slavery.
I have not reviewed the declarations, secession ordinances, or constitutions of all the Confederate states But all the ones l have seen make some reference to slavery, Lincoln's opposition to its expansion, his supposed designs for its abolition or northern interference with "our institutions" as reasons for secession. It seems pretty clear to me that slavery was a major motive for secession, and that "state's rights" was code for the right to expand slavery to every state in the Union. I have seen plenty of historical evidence to support this conclusion. Thanks for listening.
Mostly they are just racist. And you are right-most racists are pretty stupid since (by definition) they deny science. Of course so do lots of nonracists.
Not Virginia. AFAIK Virginia did not have a declaration. They rejected seccession at first, were debating it in their legislation again, and like legislative debates everywhere it was going nowhere. What finally caused them to actually seceed was a combination of Fort Sumnter and Lincoln's demand that they provide troops t fight the seceeding states.
The Union States went to war for a different reason than the Confederate States.
Both reasons for war were wrong.
Wait, is that Dr Frazier Winslow Crane?
Yeah, Rhode Island and Massachusetts had profited enormously not only from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, but also from doing business with the Caribbean slave industries.
The party of Lincoln today is unrecognizable with regard to Lincoln's theory of a democratic republic.
The war was about whether we would have hamburgers or pizza, every one knows that.
And then there was Lincoln's role in the Matson slave trial.
Brilliant and with passion..he is an authentic historian
@user-gf3lw5pi4t -- Mankind *must* be governed. History proves this ... The biggest issue with the governess is who is doing the governing?
Brilliant. I need to watch this again.
Thanks for sharing.
If 51 people want dictate the rights 49 forever then eventually there will be another civil war. The english civil war was a lesson creating checks and balances.
Today checks and balances is being challenged.
Exactly. A minority taking away medical freedom from women.
Required viewing for literally EVERY AMERICAN
Every state subscribed to Article VI, subordinating every state to the national government. Each state gave up its sovereignty to the national government whose authority came from the people. Each state gave to the national government its power over war, over international affairs and trade, over citizenship,.
No. Please read Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation which the Federation of States came out of and is a "more perfect union" of. If in doubt, read the Virginia and Kentucy Resolution.
@@FranklinSalazar-u2sNo. The Articles of Confederation were weak and failed. That document has no connection to the US Constitution.
@@warnerchandler9826 The constitution is the more perfect union than the Articles of Confederation.
If not, what is the relation that "more perfect " references?
@@FranklinSalazar-u2s Not a scholar here, but, why would it need to refer to the A of C, since the Declaration of Independence starts with,
"In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America..."?
The colonies announced themselves as thirteen "united" States before any new national/federal government was organized on paper.
As always, money. The world wanted tobacco, cotton, sugar and furs
So you're free to join the Union, but not free to leave. Sounds like Hotel California. This guy loves to praise Lincoln for his morality, I noticed he didn't bring up the Corwin amendment.
Apparently joining the union was akin to made man in the Mafia. Once you’ve in there ain’t no leaving. Thats always been a problem for me with this conflict.
Your state joined willingly when you knew there was no escape clause. Deal with it
@@IsaacBeImont NOT true, there is no such thing as a no escape clause. The Contitution doesn't mention the subject at all, therefore the power resides with the state. The states never delegated to the federal government any power to suppress secession. Therefore, secession remained a reserved right of the states. This is why President James Buchanan, Lincoln's predecessor allowed the first seven Southern states to leave in peace. Free to join, free to leave was a common belief in both the North and South at the time. Lincoln would do anything to keep the Union together. Please read your Constitution and some real history books like "The Real Lincoln".
I mean you can’t just let the states do whatever, if South Carolina had tried to leave the confederacy, do you think that Jefferson Davis would have just let them?
@@IsaacBeImont The Federal government over the last 50 years implemented a program to dumb down the citizenry through the public school system. Your comment is a prime example of the overwhelming success of that program. “You will be ignorant, own nothing and be dumb as a rock.” Quote attributed to people like Claus Swab.
Democracy is showing its fatal flaws, thank God we’re a Republic we still have some hope from the Fed overreaching.
*democratic republic.
There is no hope that's the whole problem. They've already over reached where have you been?
the professor would disappear if he was in china..so yeah democracy isnt perfect but its best..Churchill said sth similar
@@brentinnes5151 All these Tuckerbros have been sucking up so much russian propaganda, they don't know how good they have it.
Unfortunately no...we can see know how these ccp lovin commies are bending/breaking/changing laws...the Fed is controlled now...thats why FBI are spying on christians in church and at school board meetings
Brilliantly presented, bravo sir!
This man is the real life Fraser.
but probably a better actor
A minority portion of its people?
That means less than half.
@@kindnessfirst9670 Then why did the union have so much trouble keeping order? And why have you not paid reparations yet?
@@jeffmilroy9345 I don't understand what your question has to do with the definition of minority.
@@kindnessfirst9670 okay I will play along - you did not define 50 percent of we what population set. Neither did the professor.
State's Rights
no....without slavery there is no war....everything else is secondary
@@brentinnes5151 Wrong
@@paulmicelli5819 so if there is no slavery they fight that war...Wrong
@@brentinnes5151 Wrong
so they going to take on union because Union . ...? ?...what, if not to do with slavery???? you will wake up the more you study...you just caught up in lost cause myth like millions of others..with closed mind
Guelzo speaks like an aristocratic British American
God, I hope he is correct.
Martin Gary Perez Kevin Thompson Angela
First off, slavery would never have been reinstated throughout the western hemisphere had not the Union won. Secondly, he argued that the Union victory prevented anarchy when, in reality, the Union effort to win the war, its’ victory, and the aftermath caused the most anarchistic period in American history.
There’s a valid argument to say that secession was a victory for democracy. Read the Declaration of Independence, especially “the right to alter, abolish, and institute new government” part.
"In reality" the south seceding caused the "most anarchic period" in American history.
United states, one nation indivisible, do not have and never have had, since 1789, 'borders' between each other. Some States beginning in 1860 decided they should. They lost. No, every State is NOT a 'border state', contrary to the inflammatory ignorance of a handful of GOP secessionists calling themselves 'governors', who regard the unity of American life as secondary to their own short-term prestige and that of a fat grifter from Queens on whose every word they are more than willing to hang. When, not if, they force the hands of the intricate and complex interagency system of federalism that IS American civilization over the question of what a border is versus a State line, the secessionists will lose again.
🤣
Wanna bet ?
@@rowdy9379 Bet all you want, it's not my thing. One side starts shooting, the other shoots back. What is any civil war 'about'? Both sides deciding to have one. What difference does it make? There's still slavery, and there's still States demanding sovereignty. Who says the last one ever ended?
The Convention of States can be called by a majority and whole deal can be dissolved and just have States, dummy.
Money!
Be comprehensive i am traumatized if you want to support the stateless person in Brussels the wind of change Reunion Fred Ulman Great-grandfather killed civilian by spain 1926 the uncle civilian killed by france algeria 59/60 the grand father evicted 24 HOURS algeria loosing all money buisness 1970 The father evicted at midnight france (corsica) 1970 innocent ( because corisicain dead accident in office ) the father a forced sale Morocco 1982 at 50 % and me forced sale Brussel at 50 % trying to kill many times The truth all the truth i swear
The reason that you have to continually give lectures on the causes of the civil war is because you do not want to hear the grievances that plagued the south. The main reason behind this DENIAL is the slavery issue. That cancels any other reason with good reason. Just study how the South was taxed by the feds. The very reason that American pushed the British out. When the South succeeded they opened all of their ports to free trade. That is all it took for the North to invade. Study the tariff increases in the 1860 election.
nothing to do with the South becoming rich on human slavery?
No, what it took the North to invade was South Carolina infantry firing on a federal fort
The grievances that plagued the south? None of which were self-imposed backwardnesses or evil, right?
It WAS slavery. Period.
Every other excuse for the South to both secede and start the war paled in comparison to their hardened attitude toward the unending expansion of slavery.
Then the Union "liberated" the Indians.
Look up people like Dr. Brion McClanahan. I wouldn't waste much time w/ Guelzo.
you mean on ccp tiktok or far left pinko antisemite google
this guy is brilliant you must have gone to beijing university
I have not yet wasted a single minute on Guelzo: it is all good.
You've obviously fallen prey to the specious sophistry, "lost cause" bunk eminating from Brion McClanahan. Guelzo would wipe the floor in a debate with McClanahan, on the FACTS..😱🤡
@timothymeehan181 So, it's actually the other way around. You support Guelzo and the righteous cause myth. Guelzo debated Dr. Livingston and he wiped the floor with Guelzo.
Lincoln's actions were not heroic. The "Civil War" is a misnomer. The history is popularly taught in narrative form, without specificity and nuance. It's done largely to justify the centralization of power in the US.
Hey, Hay ...quit yacking and let the guest speak
It is difficult to understand why the southern slave states who knew that slavery was going to be under assault by moral do gooders from day one under the new democratic government would have entered the contract necessary for the union unless they believed that they retained the right of secession. This right was very explicitly stated in the Declaration of independence. Clearly Lincoln did not understand that part of the document that he regarded as sacred. Guelzo presents a very biased case.
Rebellions ending in session is not what central goverments want. If one part breaks of it really sets a dangerous example, especially as the USA at this time was still expanding and adding new states to the union. Slavery was just the issue , a binary one, that coudl not be compromised on that forced the issue of central goverment vs automony/independence. The USA was offically racist before, during and after the civil war. "God given rights" to exterminate and take over native indians land at the time as an example. The cash crop plantation economy needs slaves way more than industry, farming etc that has acess to millions of immigrant labour need be. As slavery was key to Southern plantation economy and key to Northen views of the USAs democracy and identity it was given hard to agree upon issue. I mean how do you have "half savery" or let soemoen be "obliged to slave 4 months per year"?
Biassed in favor of Lincoln's narrative.
What was "Lincoln's narrative?"
@@warnerchandler9826 Here's an example of a demythologized view of Lincoln (which many felt at the time, and many libertarians in the modern era). I think Razorfist oversimplified the Fort Sumter episode a bit (Major Anderson acted on his own when he redeployed from Ft. Moultrie to Ft.Sumter).
ua-cam.com/video/-pZG7snE7tU/v-deo.htmlsi=Yk3iPEKUPsEkVfZ1
@@gordonmorris6359 Iasked a question following up on your use if the term "Lincoln's narrative." You answer with a video link where, presumably, someone else lays out what? a different narrative?
@@warnerchandler9826 The link is just a labor saving device for me, it's a complex subject covered sufficiently by others. It's been months since I last saw the original post I commented on (and you replied to recently with your question) and I don't feel like watching it again to delineate the Lincoln bias I claimed at the time.
@@gordonmorris6359 Okay then.
I started the vid you linked. I could not take even five minutes of the guy. He is radically unserious.
If you have time, I would be legitimately interested in your summary of your point.
A great lecturer. Read Lees biography by him.
Engels was hired by Lincoln through agents unnamed to end the because he was unable to stop it. Source: Author Taylor Caldwell
" It was like wow," Donld Trump on the Cival War
"democratic government would have been shown to be incapable of avoiding anarchy when a minority portion of its people decided they no longer wished to abide by its political direction and claimed a popular sovereign right to withdraw." ---as happened in the Revolution; as detailed as a right of man in the Declaration. You putz.
If you want to bring our government down without firing a shot, JUST STOP PAYING TAXES.
The colonies rebelled from a tyrannical government, not from within a "democratic" one. Your very premise is wrong.
That makes WHO the putz?
If America wants to improve its democracy they should have an Electoral Commission as well as compulsory and preferential voting.
Good idea! That will solve the US Civil War that was fought 160 years ago.
@@warnerchandler9826 well at least it would give everyone an even playing field though you need to have an independent news media something we unfortunately lack.
What was the civil war about? Why gosh, it was about 4 years long and gave this guy something to talk about.
He who eyes to see, let him read.
About slavery
if only Americans had stayed in the empire.. slavery had been abolished in the 1830s...😊
The Scotch/Irish were sick of the English.
but they were a republic..
White Laura Davis Paul Harris Sandra
A: slavery
Propaganda disguised as reason.
"What was the civil war about? Why gosh, it was about 4 years long and gave this guy something to talk about."
And his lecture only SEEMED like it took four years!
He speaks so well, but is completely full of shit
What were the actual causes of the Civil War, in your opinion? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why, after earning multiple degrees, 50 years of study and teaching, and obviously knowing minute details about the war, this professor is wrong about its causes.
Found him...
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Did you mean to ask for the reason of the "War of Northern Aggression" or did you mean something else?
He's not discussing unicorns or oz either
How was it a war of Northern aggression when the South shot first?
Just another Lincoln apologist, making excuses for the tyranny of the Federal Government.
The real tyranny was the southern states crushing rule of one ethnic group over another who were treated as chattels, like cattle.
So glad someone else knows The TRUTH. He does indeed worship the god of AL. This is called IDOLATRY. He claims to be a Christian. 'You shall have no idols before Me'--
@@pmcclaren1 Are you a Trump supporter? They all seem pretty idolatrous to me, while also claiming to be christians...
@@RunOfTheHind There's never been any difference in the partiers. & yes they are 'cult members' as well--
@@pmcclaren1 How refreshing.
However, I don't think admiration of the man that ended slavery counts as idolatry. However, snce it sounds like you think the bible is truth, I'm assuming you therefore agree with slavery, since that book is for it?