Americans born after FDR cannot conceive of an America so small. Prior to the consolidation, states held all the authority and had considerable autonomy. Nothing like that exists today
@@lv4077 I guarantee you there was MUCH LESS government control in mid 19th century! Remember, the North ( the United States of America) did not attack the Southern Slave Holding (South’s term) States, CSA. The South began the shooting war that killed > 600,000 people. The CSA was all Democrats. We can debate how parties may have changed; but in reality, they haven’t actually changed that much. The Democrats are still for subjugation of people & Republicans are for freedom & liberty as defined originally in the constitution and the legally passed Amendments.
Let's not forget how Wilson got elected. If not for Teddy's bull moose party would we have had to deal with Wilson? Much like how we got Clinton. Ross Perot played his part.
Yup. For that and ww1. If we had not gotten involved, not only would we have saved over 100,000 American lives, but there would have been no ww2. And a the evil that has emanated from his administration. The Fed is the key. Without it, they could not have funded their agenda.
Yes, and which led to the illegal income tax via payroll tax by withholding in 1943, through the victory tax. So employers were persuaded to be tax collectors. To this day a non ratified 16 amendment had evolved into an authoritative unconstitutional IRS.
There was no Pearl Harbor before 1938. The Pacific Fleet would anchor at Lahaina Roads while the harbor was being constructed. When FDR ordered the Fleet to be stationed at Pearl Harbor, his top admiral argued against, saying that San Diego was a far better place to station the fleet. The Admiral feared how the Japanese might react and told FDR that the USN was not in fighting shape. FDR fired the admiral.
@@d-day67- If you’re pulling a Satanic Marxist denegration of religion, keep in mind that the 6th commandment is to not kill/murder. I’ve read the bible, and I don’t consent to Satanic gaslighting. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell leaders to sacrifice their country’s men. The Bible recounts history, wars, etc., and quotes the participants, but nowhere is there any general directive in the present tense for murder. The Bible’s a story - an account. It isn’t a manifesto ;) If you were paying attention to the talk, the whole point of the three worst presidents is that they murdered. God isn’t into sacrifice - Satanists are into human sacrifice - particularly child sacrifice ;)
I'm from Louisiana. I was taught what was said here. All the younger folks I met think I am insane when I mention any of this. Are they teaching lies now or what? If we don't have a truthful foundation, we have nothing
@@johnreynolds2512President (Fill in the blank) was the best/worst president in the history of time and space. The best week in the history of all that is holy and righteous. 🤣🤣
@@johnreynolds2512This guy was a guest behind the golden EIB microphone of the Rush Limbaugh Show. If you don’t agree with everything he says, than you hate America good sir. 🤣🤣 jk
You should know that this man's arguments are nothing more than a repetition of the opinions of Northern Democrat supporters of slavery. Some wars are worth fighting. Even the most well intentioned conflicts cause horrible actions by folks on all side.
Woodrow Wilson died in 1924. A sense of German community in the US was still very strong in the 1930s. Unfortunately this was expressed in the form of the German American Bund. The organization mimicked the Nazi regime in Germany, dividing the USA into gaue led by a gauleiter, and had a fine old romp setting up training camps, parading under swastikas, and attacking President Roosevelt's New Deal as "Frank D. Rosenfeld's Jew Deal". This organization, together with some unpleasant things done by the Germans to some of their own citizens in Germany and the territories they enslaved, took some of the zing out of the sense of German community pride in the USA after 1945, You really think it was all down to Woodrow Wilson?
I concur, but TR made that happen by running as his Bull Moose third party candidate. Which threw the electoral vote to Wilson. And TR, by executive order, started the organization that would become the FBI. Congress was dead set against a government spy/secret police force.
How did that work out for the people??? Not. It was to be monitored or spied on terrorists who wanted to harm the US. Instead, they used it to spy on American people. Wrong!!! I do not like agree a secret court to get permission to spy on American people. It needs to be stopped. The government, as usual, takes advantage of it own people.
True, but it should be Kennedy/Johnson...LBJ retained almost all of JFK's retinue of advisors ("best and the brightest"), the Great Society was an expansion of JFK's own New Frontier legislation, and the ruinous Space Race wouldn't have been such a spending boondoggle without Kennedy's Moon speech.
Makes me completely rethink my understanding of history. I’ve been familiar with Gen. Smedly Butler for years but the first time I’ve heard why he came to the conclusion that he did. Thanks for sharing.
I relate the civil war to a broken marriage. Person goes to their spouse "hey this isn't working I am going to leave". The spouse says "If you leave I will kill you". The individual leaves and the spouse does in fact kill their partner. Doesn't matter why the other person wanted to leave the partner is wrong for killing that person for leaving.
OMG I'm not quite finished listening to this yet, but I hope he ends by saying, how much of what he is talking about in history is also happening NOW!! Paying farmers to stop farming, making rules for them to reduce the amount of stocks they can make, to protect the environment. Alright so maybe they don't come in to our homes physically to search through letters to see if we're opposed to their agendas, but they don't have to physically enter, they just monitor social media. So much of what he sites, there's a close equivalent happening right now!!
Even though I'm an Austrian by nationality and not by economic philosophy I found the talk very interesting. Especially about Wilson who destroyed the German Empire and Austria-Hungary and brought so much pain to Central Europe...
He was a racist and a Democrat very similar to the Democrat party. We have now in the USA that are always getting involved in war and breaking the bank spending too much money.. Joe Biden has been a dictator for four years and I can’t wait to get Kamala and that bunch out of office because they have no morals!! I pray to God Trump gets reelected, and that’s before Joe starts World War III. General Pershing, who was in charge of the American expeditionary forces in Europe, in World War I, did not agree with the treaty of Versailles, and he said before they left “ we will be back!”. He knew that the treaty was going to leave the German and Austrian all on the table, porn, starving, and the United States was anything, but. Sad!! The USA had more than enough resources to help Germany to get back up on their feet and help feed those people. The general wanted a surrender so what happened during World War II would not get to the point where it destroyed Berlin & the entirety of Germany. The US government knew that the European empires were starving, and had been dying by the millions for three years. My gosh, for the love of God Americans would’ve sent food if they would’ve been able to see the conditions over there. The people in the USA are very generous and then there are the elite and that are really snobby and I think there’s a do-gooders, but they’re really just nosy. I hate to say it, but it’s true and I don’t know what it’s like to go through any kind of suffering or I have to go without a cell phone or any modern technology and if they had to add with a pen and paper they couldn’t do it. They need technology to do everything and I think the millennials were probably the last group to learn how to do mathematics found paper after elementary school
WOW! I did my own research to confirm with what he said. Incredible, when you don't know histories failures you are doomed to repeat them. The same things are going on right now. Wake up not woke up !
I'm sorry but at 30:23 HE IS WRONG. Russia had entered WWI AT THE VERY BEGINNING, august 1914. in fact it was Russian mobilization to support the Serbs that helped start it maybe Wilson paid the provisional govt to STAY in the war in 1917 , but NOT to enter it. but that is not what he said besides the provisional govt in Russia was only in power for a few months from Feb to October 1917. and it was not "before the Revolution" but after the first Revolution which had the Tsar deposed, and before the Bolshevik oct revolution which seized power from the provisional govt there was no provisional govt when Russia did enter WWI at the very beginning of it for the tsar was still in po0wer Dr DiLorenzo is shaky on Russian history ( which is one of my specialty interests) this is understandable but he really should remedy this
This was far from a historical lecture. He just threw out facts and did not cite much or provide historical context for any of his critiques. Glad that you wrote this bc it seemed to me he made a few unsubstantiated claims.
Yeah, and it may be true the Bolsheviks and Lennon claimed to want peace but the Marxist call for revolution and bloodshed wasn't exactly a peaceful ideology and just because a party says that one thing, doesn't mean that is what they believe. Totalitarian regimes need war in order to unite unhappy populace against an "other" in order to prevent criticism of the regime and it likely always would have lead to the bloodshed of the Soviet Union and rise of Communism regardless. The United State over inflates their contribution to European Affairs during that period especially because we anachronistically assign our world influence from today into the 1920s and we just did not have the kind of influence back then as we do today.
A good list, but I was born in 1939 so I've had to deal with the socialist policies of FDR and the racism of LBJ. Trump 2024, or another unmitigated disaster.
@@mrbill2600 then you know the only socialist clap trap is the Democratic Party just like it always was. Trump has 20 promises. None of it is socialist. It’s common sense.
@@aradlatifi2524 Did you even listen to the talk? FDR took a wrecking ball to the economy, through overtly authoritarian means, the legacy of which burdens us today.
I remember an article some years ago after it came out Lincoln was still planning colonization in 1865 that asserted that Lincoln still had a change of heart before the end. The end was only a few weeks later.
Dead last place between Lincoln and FDR is like asking who is worse for the Roman republic, Julius Caesar or Diocletian. Philosophically it'd be Lincoln/Ceasar as there will be no last step if there isn't a first one. Practically it's FDR/Diocletian as they are the one who hammer the last nail into the coffin.
Teddy Roosevelt also used the Government to break up monopolies in the market that lead to Crony Capitalism. He did expand Government but major powers like government should be big enough to prevent rule of corporate monopolies as well. Not to mention the national parks and conservation of natural resources from him has blessed us today so not up there with people like Woodrow Wilson and FDR who seemed to only put administrative state Bureaucracies for Power sake. I also think speak softly and carry a big stick is one of the most effective Foreign policies to this date and is why Trump was able to settle down all the wars during his presidency. But yea we definitely have Government over reach from TR especially because people agreed with a lot of his policies which made the ground fertile for power creep from the Presidential seat.
Teddy Roosevelt also deserves a dishonorable mention for third-partying Taft which directly led to the election of Wilson. Why did he third party Taft? Taft was deregulating the federal government...
LBJ was instrumental in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, significantly expanding the rights and freedoms of non-white Americans. These expansions of freedoms should be praised and celebrated
I had only watched about 1/4 of the video when I wrote my response just above. Now that I finished it, I can confidently say that DiLorenzo is the most dishonest human being I have ever heard give a speech. His falsehoods numbered over 100. Absolutely shameless.
Let's be real. This is ideological historical revisionism. Its the same thing the Marxists do, just from the opposite side of the gov't spectrum. There is no "universal truth" to be found in the utterances of an ideologue who forces history through a cheese grater to validate the textbook dogma.
Yes, the ones they love so much for some of the words except for George, Washington and Jefferson Madison. Reagan was great and he was president when I was in junior high and high school. I was a kid and I knew Carter was horrible and I was only eight when he got elected😂😂
We didn't find out until the Soviet Republic collapsed that the 2 nominations for Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury by FDR were both spies for Stalin. Thank God, FDR died, and Truman became President.
Abstract utopian ideology meets the real world. Austrians/Libertarians share the same utopian flaw of so many other ideologies, because it branches out from the same tree of classical liberalism and inherits its utopian world view, optimistic view of human nature and abstract approach to the human experience. A traditional conservative, who understands the human nature/anti-utopian angle can see right through Libertarianism and thus sees little difference between it and modern liberalism on the core fundamental level (regardless of the polar opposite approach to government power).
@@David-fm6goThis is pretty much why I’m no longer libertarian. My conscious decision to set aside my optimism has opened me to see other likely possibilities, caused me to more strongly mistrust government (though it is already a feature of libertarianism), and prompts my family to worry about me! 😆 Sometimes anarchy seems just as attractive to me as so-called social order.
@@darktimesatrockymountainhi4046 For me it is a tendency to view the world as chaotic, which (cutting out all the American New Right crap) is the core of traditional conservative thought when it comes to foreign policy and the world at large. The world is chaotic and dangerous, but at the same time "most" actors on the world stage are rational (rational does not mean good or reasonable mind you). Take trade for example, the libertarian and neoliberal dogmatist would assert that free trade is superior because of efficiency, freedom of choice and competition. The realists would counter that there is no such thing as "free trade" and that the world market is dominated by cartels, heavy handed state influence, and concerted efforts to suppress competition through a variety of tactics. Ironically libertarians agree that what presently exists in the world is not free trade either, however they play the "Not real real x" game that socialists also play in this regard. Both agree that the present dynamic is not free trade, libertarians because it hasn't been tried yet, realists/traditional conservatives because free trade is a utopian fantasy that can never exist in a real world. China cheats on trade because they have every rational incentive to do so, it is hard to argue that they have not benefitted from doing so (but also are and will pay a price for how far they have took it). The fact that the country that does this, is a surveillance state that is shown every willingness to leverage its economic ties to silence criticism of it's oppressive regime only adds to the dynamic. Free trade with a country like China, is a recipe for becoming dominated by a foreign power. In the ideal world, free trade is suppose to liberate everyone. In the real world, it makes you the prisoner to most manipulative and domineering regime. and yes, you could make this same case against the US itself, which doesn't refute my point, it only strengthens it. Early American nationalists like Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln were not globalists as they are so often maligned by libertarian ideologues, they were the exact opposite. They saw the world as a dangerous and domineering place and that the only way to secure the victory in the American Revolution was to avoid being dependent on the leading super power of the time (Great Britain). Typically those three are maligned because of their support for the American financial system and the establishment of a national bank, which is the big boogeyman for the libertarian. However, at the time global finance was dominated by the British and the mindset of the nationalist and realist was that the development of domestic financial capability would lessen the dominance of the British over the American Economy. Britain was keen to use its vast financial resources to dump cheap iron at a loss onto the American market and work through agents to assist pro-free trade elements (usually rail executives and plantation owners) to remove the tariffs on iron. Once the mills of Pennsylvania and Ohio were closed, the British would jack up the price since there was less supply on the global market. This is how free trade works in reality, its a game that is always manipulated by the cartel with the biggest capital reserves and the most ability to project foreign influence to manipulate the domestic affairs of other countries. Britain in the 1800s, the US in the 20th century and the Chinese in the 21st century.
First let me say that although I disagree with many of this historian’s ‘interpretations’, I am appreciative of the fact that he’s given the right to freely express his opinions. As for the Civil War… his main argument is that “hey, the South voted to succeed and it was their right to do so under a voluntary union”. Well, while nominally that is true, he does seem to forget the fact that there were millions of human beings, born in those southern states, which were totally disenfranchised from having any say in such a decision by virtue of being in bondage. If we are to take a retrospective look at history then would I argue that their rights and wishes should have been considered. After all, I do seem to recall that minor little item in the Declaration of Independence about all men being created equal and everything.
Wait a minute... At 30:30 he claims that Russia entered WWI because Wilson paid Russia off. Russia was one of the original combatants. They declared war on the Austro-Hungarian empire in defense of Bosnia, which started the defensive alliance cascade that really kicked the war off. If the presenter can get something so basic factually wrong, it makes me doubt the veracity of his whole lecture. I don't have the time to go over the lecture with a fine-tooth comb to fact check all his statements, though.
To keep Russia in the war, the Wilson administration extended tens of millions in credits for armaments and military supplies to Kerensky’s government, with J.P. Morgan also raising money in direct support of his cause.
@@betsmiley3588 Respectfully, while that is an excellent point, that's not what the presenter said. The presenter said that Russia ENTERED WWI as a combatant due to being paid off by the Wilson administration, which is blatantly false. What he said about the Czarist government collapsing during the war, which led to eventually Lenin taking power was true... However you cannot lay this at Wilson's feet. Look at the treaty Germany made the Leninist government sign to get the Soviet's out of WWI. It made the later Versailles treaty look downright tame in comparison, with the huge swaths of territory and population the Soviets turned over to Germany. I'm not sure the Czarist government would have survived signing a similar treaty to bow out before being overthrown.
And why would the confederacy want low tariffs on foreign trade? Oh right, because the institution of slavery as well as their land holdings meant they had an economic advantage over any nation who wanted to pay decent compensation for those who make value creation possible. But sure, focus on "voluntariness of political union" while never complaining that you can enforce your court judgments - including bankruptcy - across state lines.
... and Trump ... and Obama .... and Dubya ... and can't forget ol' Slick Willie. All have done contemptible things as President. This is why I'm Agorist in my principles. You can't fix something that is inherently corrupt.
FDR also moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor and top admirals objected and called Pearl a "mouse trap" and foolish to base the fleet in such a restricted location well within the reach of a Japansee naval task force. FDR ignored them because he was using the fleet as bait for the Japanese and it worked like a charm. FDR once said "In politics nothing happens by accident. If it happens it was planned that way."
The USA couldn't have pivoted to Asia without first enticing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor and as you rightly point out you need to put bait inside the trap. FDR's scheme of empire building is a lot more sophisticated than just setting the Pearl Harbor trap. Japan started the invasion of China back in 1931 and from then on until 1941 the US had kept exporting to Japan materials such as oil and scrap metal which were essential for the invasion. Only by 1941 did US ban the export of those materials and demanded complete Japan withdrawal from China. Japan by then was knee deep inside China and would be suicidal if she complied with the demand for withdrawal. In other words, Japan was cornered and had no choice but to attack PH. The US had sacrificed many soldiers and resources in defeating Japan but also gained tremendously - an island in the western Pacific Ocean under USA permanent control. In my opinion (not an American) FDR is the brightest geopolitical strategist among all US presidents. Wonder why the US could elect such a far sighted individual as president back then.
I haven't looked at the video but my three would be: 1) Woodrow Wilson - Ironically if Teddy Roosevelt doesn't pick Taft as his successor, who was a disaster, and runs as a third party, Taft or ANY OTHER candidate beats Wilson. Roosevelt and Taft voters combined beat Wilson more than Bush Sr. would have beat Clinton if Ross Perot doesn't run. 2) FDR - He is the ONLY President to break with Washington's precedence to run and win more than three terms. He also created the super government we have today with all the entitlements. 3) Buchanan - Completely ineffective and just ran out the clock on tough issues with his presidency leaving a Civil War for his successor. Update: I got two out of the three. Lincoln took the hit for cleaning up Buchanan, Pierce and Fillmore though Buchanan did the most damage.
There's another myth which needs to busted here. The notion of a "Unified South" or a "Consolidated Confederacy" against the Union is a total lie. Many (poor) Southern whites actually opposed the war. The only reason that so many Southern whites signed up to fight in the first year was ... they had to. Peer pressure was key, along with the initial propaganda surge that the Union was "violating their states' rights." Also the need for food and clothing was so great for so many of them, since many of them were poor, on large account because of the corrosive effects of slavery on free enterprise. A n honest laborer cannot compete with free labor, after all. When it comes to desertion rates among soldiers, they were much higher among the Confederate armies compared to Union forces. One of the most remarkable accounts was during Union General William Tecumseh Sherman's "March to the Sea," during which he waged total war from Atlanta to Savannah. His army actually grew in size, to such an extent he had to turn away volunteers. Many of those new recruits were white Southerners, as well as freed blacks. This Magnolia Myth of a "Courageous yet Defeated South" filled with liberty-minded people standing up to an abusive Union federal government is simply not true. I encourage everyone to read the following books for more information and to verify my comments: Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President, by Thomas L. Krannawitter War Within a War; the Confederacy Against Itself, by Carleton Beals Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, by James W. Loewen
I worked at Dunleith Plantation. There I got familiar with Dahlgren. He was put in command of Mississippi forces and demoted for refusing to commit his forces to the Confederacy at large. This was a common attitude in the South. How can you have a cohesive strategy when local forces stay local?
“Local forces”, i.e., a decentralized military, requires real consensus building - which severely limits the ability of a national government continually fighting foreign wars. Sounds like a good thing to me. Thomas Jefferson said “he feared a central bank more than a standing professional army”, and he was not alone with this. What does this tell us? Many of the Founders opposed central banking AND a standing professional army [both of which go together, btw]! Why else does the 2nd amendment refer to “a well regulated militia”…? Let’s contend for a decentralized military.., and everything else!
The increase in the desertion Rate in the Confederate did not occur until the late winter of 1864 and up through March/April or 1865. As for the Sherman, it was the increase in free slaves marching with his column that forced him turn them away, not white southern men.
I learnt from Lincoln. My spouse thought I was abusive and tried to leave, so I pulled out my guns and forced them to stay. I preserved our union. I deserve a statue in my honour as the Saviour of Marriage. I learnt from Lincoln.
@@Smokr What? Lincoln supported slavery, but kept no direct slave. Rather, he aggressed against the southern people, shaking them down as tax livestock -commanding them to pay up, or face invasion, bloodshed, and force. About this, Lincoln said in his First Message to the U.S. Congress, on July 4, 1861: "My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40% federal sales tax on imports to South under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
@@mani8512. Biput Lincoln ran as the nominee of the newly formed Republican Party, which was adamantly opposed to the EXPANSION of slavery into new territories. This was enough for those first seven deep southern states to secede (unconstitutionally) from the Union before Lincoln ever took office. Lincoln within his party was a moderate, not yet an abolitionist. Personally Lincoln hated and despised slavery, in part because of his own personal history- his father used to hire him out for heavy manual labor, for which he never received any of the money his father was paid. And in his “house divided” speech, he made it clear that he didn’t think the nation could forever be half slave and half free. He said that in the end it would all become one or the other. Lincoln’s first inaugural speech was an attempt to prevent a civil war, which is why he stated that he had neither the power legally, nor the intention of disturbing slavery in those STATES (not US Territories) where it already existed. But he, and most Union states never accepted the opinion that secession was legal in the way that the seven, and later four more states seceded. To dissolve the Union, the process had to be the same as that which amended the Constitution. Namely, a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress, and then 3/4 of the states would have to vote in favor of dissolution. The only other option was through constitutional conventions, but again, it would need the agreement of 3/4 of all the states, something that wasn’t going to happen. That is the ONLY process for revoking the Constitution, and dissolving the Union. As for the Emancipation, Lincoln undertook that as a war measure, and it is very clear that it applied to those states, and portion of states still in a state of active rebellion. It was as the war went on that Lincoln gradually came to realize that there had to be “a new birth of freedom” and that slavery, the underlying cause of the war (look at the seceding states Ordinances of Secession), would have to go. Lincoln’s position on slavery gradually moved toward abolition, and the cause of that movement was the incredible carnage of the Civil War.
I strongly disagree with a lot of his viewpoints but I’m proud that the university I attended was at least open minded enough to have someone like this as a faculty member
Very informative. The three presidents he lists were never my favorites, though i did hold Lincoln in high regard until judge Napolitano spoke of his abuses. Plenty of specifics in this presentation to support his position. Much to think about.
@@coleparker Income tax, arresting political opponents including journalists and sitting politicians without trial, creating the draft, ordering the army to fire upon civilians who protested said draft. I would go on but your attention span probably isn't the greatest.
@@allistairlicorice310 First of all the Income Tax was a recognized Constitutional measure under the Federal Revenue act to pay for emergency measures, and was removed after the war. But was reenacted again 1894. Secondly, the establishment of a draft was not prohibited by any Constitution, but enforce compliance to a service was first done by George Washington himself at Valley Forge. As for the Army firing on the NY protesters, yes that was done, but do not forget that protest was not peaceful by any means. Lynchings of black men was done and black childrens orphanage was burned down, and troops were attacked. FYI since the local Militia AKA was already called up Federal troops took their place, and such actions they took, still take place even today, eg. George Floyd Riots. As for arresting political opponents, and sitting politicians. I will have to really check into that. Finally, with respects to your comment, you are reflection of this lecturer. No real research behind it, just charges and statements. Also FYI, my some of my ancestors fought for the Confederacy, one of whom, was a Brigadier General at the Battle of Shiloh, so I have no reason to be particularly fond of Lincoln.
While I'm loathe to hear that information opposed to std school of thinking is refreshing. It is refreshing to hear information that is not in the standard school of thought. I like hearing this kind of information.
I used to think that if the US had stayed out of WW1, there would not have been a WWIi, but now I know that there very likely would not have been a Cold War, either.
@@tritium1998 Hardly. We declared war on Spain in 1898 over Cuba. We then smashed the ill prepared Spanish fleet and became an empire which, as it turned us into a modernize Roman Empire. The United States has been at war with someone in many places ever since. Woodrow Wilson just barely got us involved in WWI. Had we not fought in WWI, there would not have been a WWII. No WWII might well have prevented a Cold War between the US and the USSR.
It's so easy to believe that if you do nothing there will be peace, but history shows otherwise. It's like thinking if you never stand up to bullies there will be no bullies or if you never fight crime there will be no crime. Of course, the opposite is true.
@@lawtutoring the man spent his entire career rallying against the state. I'm not sure that two positions outside of the consensus should render him no longer qualified.
@@barfo281the one whose senility has been concealed by the people around him for years, while taxpayers gave hundreds of billions to the corrupt country where his son had a cushy fake job?
The same as the reason for the secession, they were getting outvoted in elections because there A: were more northerners B: the northerners were increasing in populace faster C: At least in part due to huge incomes of Euro migrants like Germans who were strictly anti-slavery to Northern states. Even if they retained slavery as an institution they would have no political 'capital' in the country and that inevitability made secession even outright war seem desirable.
@@MarikHavair I understand this position, but it still doesn't directly address the question as to why not press your case - the right of a state to succeed from the union - directly to the Supreme Court.
Don't believe what you heard here. DiLorenzo is a well-known "Lost Causer", who twists history around to fit his narrative. Just as it relates to Lincoln, consider the fact that he made no mention of Marbury vs. Madison, the Articles of Secession of every single state of the Confederacy, every one of which focused on slavery, and Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech. That's just a start. DiLorenzo is a propagandist at best, and a full blown liar at worst.
Now that I finished watching the video, I can confidently say that DiLorenzo is the most dishonest person I have ever heard give a speech. The man is utterly shameless. Not a word of truth contained therein.
FDR sent our Ambassador to France, William Bullit to Poland to convince the Poles to provoke a German invasion to have England and France to declare war on Germany .
NASA NOT SO FUNNY JFK was appalled when he found out the OSS had not only brought over the 3rd reisch practically intact but realized how sick the deep state was (from ties to the mafia to engineering with the UK WW1, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Depression, WW2) and made his way to the presidency, he thought to stop it. His archrival, ghwb, a former double agent and de facto COO of the cia, helped him get elected, to manipulate him for eight years (Norma Jean, and more). But JFK was going to outsmart them. The goons were setting up NASA (NAZI) as a money laundering scheme. Any undergrad engineer knows there are practical barriers to putting something in space that requires oxygen and a toilet too. The radiation, the vacuum, the temperature extremes, each singly make anything less than Space Mountain too shabby for the ride. The space race was much easier on Americans than the 'arms' race. Why did the Soviet Union need a Cold War? Same reason a whore needs a pimp. Like they really cared if Vietnam went Red, or thought they could out last US. So JFK baited them and then fucked them with "We'll do it inside the decade,” after all WW2 only took 3-4 years to destroy Europe, including 2000 years worth of Jewish communities, as well as who knows how much of Asia. Throwing a U-Boat at the moon is surely a cakewalk. ("Don't call me Shirley", Buzz Aldrin) My bet is ideally he was going to wait for his lame duck term willing to embarrass himself as a liar to the World, at the same time ending the oligarchy, or at least exposing it for All to see (like we do now). Maybe he was going to spill the beans in Dallas. BTW, They must have had tons of shit on his brothers too.
You only forgot a few: Clinton, Bush 1, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Teddy, Grant, Johnson, Jackson,...and I am sure many others that we just don't have the facts on yet.
Hard to narrow it down to 3 but I would go with Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. Notice any connections? And if I had a fourth vote I would probably go with Wilson again. The Federal Reserve and WW1 make him the best worst President.
Americans born after FDR cannot conceive of an America so small. Prior to the consolidation, states held all the authority and had considerable autonomy. Nothing like that exists today
Sadly things haven’t changed much,in fact the federal government’s overarching hunger for power and control has only increased.
With Trump passing executive orders to reign it in and having more originalist tax policy
Time for TEXIT!
@@lv4077 I guarantee you there was MUCH LESS government control in mid 19th century! Remember, the North ( the United States of America) did not attack the Southern Slave Holding (South’s term) States, CSA. The South began the shooting war that killed > 600,000 people. The CSA was all Democrats. We can debate how parties may have changed; but in reality, they haven’t actually changed that much. The Democrats are still for subjugation of people & Republicans are for freedom & liberty as defined originally in the constitution and the legally passed Amendments.
Alot Of similarities to today! I agree with you
due to Democruds!
Woodrow Wilson by far. 1913 Federal Reserve Act
Let's not forget how Wilson got elected. If not for Teddy's bull moose party would we have had to deal with Wilson?
Much like how we got Clinton. Ross Perot played his part.
Yup. For that and ww1. If we had not gotten involved, not only would we have saved over 100,000 American lives, but there would have been no ww2. And a the evil that has emanated from his administration. The Fed is the key. Without it, they could not have funded their agenda.
Segregated the military also.. yeah, wilson did terrible damage to the country.
He also gave women rights to vote. Which secure his second reelection when he did that federal reserve act.
Yes, and which led to the illegal income tax via payroll tax by withholding in 1943, through the victory tax. So employers were persuaded to be tax collectors. To this day a non ratified 16 amendment had evolved into an authoritative unconstitutional IRS.
There was no Pearl Harbor before 1938. The Pacific Fleet would anchor at Lahaina Roads while the harbor was being constructed. When FDR ordered the Fleet to be stationed at Pearl Harbor, his top admiral argued against, saying that San Diego was a far better place to station the fleet. The Admiral feared how the Japanese might react and told FDR that the USN was not in fighting shape. FDR fired the admiral.
FDR knew of the Pearl Harbor attack prior to it happening.
Because FDR wanted to bring America into the Pacific theater of war. Like Mike Ruffalo said: They knew about it (the attack) and they let it happen!"
The U.S. let the attacks at Pearl Harbor happen in order to get into WWII for geopolitical reasons.
Wow....just wow.
It seemed FDR knew about the pearl harbor attack in advance... Hmmmm... I wonder why? War maybe?
Where else have we seen this? 🤔
Most rank presidents by their "greatness". The correct way is by how faithfully they held to their oath to defend life and liberty.
Life and liberty of everyone other than rich white guys.
And how EVIL they were by how well they served their father. (how many they killed as an offering to him)
which is why the best were the ones who did nothing and let the country do it's thing
Beautiful!
Love from Canada
@@d-day67- If you’re pulling a Satanic Marxist denegration of religion, keep in mind that the 6th commandment is to not kill/murder. I’ve read the bible, and I don’t consent to Satanic gaslighting. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell leaders to sacrifice their country’s men. The Bible recounts history, wars, etc., and quotes the participants, but nowhere is there any general directive in the present tense for murder. The Bible’s a story - an account. It isn’t a manifesto ;) If you were paying attention to the talk, the whole point of the three worst presidents is that they murdered. God isn’t into sacrifice - Satanists are into human sacrifice - particularly child sacrifice ;)
I'm from Louisiana. I was taught what was said here. All the younger folks I met think I am insane when I mention any of this. Are they teaching lies now or what? If we don't have a truthful foundation, we have nothing
"We" have less & less each year... Thanks. Best Regards.
You were taught poorly then. This guy is shoe-horning historical figures through his political biases.
@@johnreynolds2512President (Fill in the blank) was the best/worst president in the history of time and space. The best week in the history of all that is holy and righteous. 🤣🤣
@@johnreynolds2512This guy was a guest behind the golden EIB microphone of the Rush Limbaugh Show. If you don’t agree with everything he says, than you hate America good sir. 🤣🤣 jk
You should know that this man's arguments are nothing more than a repetition of the opinions of Northern Democrat supporters of slavery.
Some wars are worth fighting. Even the most well intentioned conflicts cause horrible actions by folks on all side.
Wilson also destroyed the German culture in the US. It was a once thriving community that was terrified into oblivion.
Good
@@Bambino_60bigot
@@mfredcourtney5876 two world wars may have had something to do with that.
Woodrow Wilson died in 1924. A sense of German community in the US was still very strong in the 1930s. Unfortunately this was expressed in the form of the German American Bund. The organization mimicked the Nazi regime in Germany, dividing the USA into gaue led by a gauleiter, and had a fine old romp setting up training camps, parading under swastikas, and attacking President Roosevelt's New Deal as "Frank D. Rosenfeld's Jew Deal". This organization, together with some unpleasant things done by the Germans to some of their own citizens in Germany and the territories they enslaved, took some of the zing out of the sense of German community pride in the USA after 1945, You really think it was all down to Woodrow Wilson?
@@kevinmcinerney1959
The war on hypennatedAmericans was a success. You don't know the history
In my lifetime the ones who made us suffered the most (ie economy, safety, embarrassment) are Biden, Obama, daddy and baby Bush, LJB, Clinton.
Clinton was a statesman compared to Carter.
LBJ was evil
Everybody calls him daddy because he loves you, makes you embarrassed, and makes financial blunders with pretending that they are victories
in my lifetime we have only had one decent president
Biden isn’t even close to the worst, and Trump is very obviously the worst president ever. He actually tried to steal a democratic election.
Woodrow Wilson is to blame for our bureaucratic unelected class
I concur, but TR made that happen by running as his Bull Moose third party candidate. Which threw the electoral vote to Wilson. And TR, by executive order, started the organization that would become the FBI. Congress was dead set against a government spy/secret police force.
Yup! He even gave women rights to vote. Horrible idea! Pushing for egalitarianism and feminism.
Not entirely I'm blanking on who established the permanent civil service.
Bush signed the patriot act.
How did that work out for the people??? Not. It was to be monitored or spied on terrorists who wanted to harm the US. Instead, they used it to spy on American people. Wrong!!! I do not like agree a secret court to get permission to spy on American people. It needs to be stopped. The government, as usual, takes advantage of it own people.
Excellent lecture. My family and I just missed you at the First White House of the Confederacy in Montgomery. You really left an impact on the hosts.
Whoever said he would, "fundamentally change America".
That would be Barak Hussein Obama - or Barry Sotoro if you don't care for his MUSLIM name.
Whoever says the American Government and institutions should NOT fundamentally change also.
@@joaov.m.oliveira9903 the Constitution
Trump is the worst@@Smokr
BO loved to quote the depressive, degenerate Lincoln. Both presidents made purdy speeches full of bromides that did not match their actions.
LBJ was the worst no redeeming qualities.
True, but it should be Kennedy/Johnson...LBJ retained almost all of JFK's retinue of advisors ("best and the brightest"), the Great Society was an expansion of JFK's own New Frontier legislation, and the ruinous Space Race wouldn't have been such a spending boondoggle without Kennedy's Moon speech.
Even the 1965 immigration act was something Kennedy had pushed since he was a congressman.
@@jackbryan4676 Johnson was much better at getting things done, JFK was playboy hack.
"Worse" meaning "dangerous" here as opposed to corrupt of ineffective
One could make a case for Grant and FDR coming after LBJ.
Makes me completely rethink my understanding of history. I’ve been familiar with Gen. Smedly Butler for years but the first time I’ve heard why he came to the conclusion that he did. Thanks for sharing.
"Tales of the American Empire" documentary series on FewTube, over 120 episodes on our rotten history
War is a Racket by Smedley Butler.
held the torch for Eisenhower to pick it up
I relate the civil war to a broken marriage. Person goes to their spouse "hey this isn't working I am going to leave". The spouse says "If you leave I will kill you". The individual leaves and the spouse does in fact kill their partner. Doesn't matter why the other person wanted to leave the partner is wrong for killing that person for leaving.
OMG I'm not quite finished listening to this yet, but I hope he ends by saying, how much of what he is talking about in history is also happening NOW!! Paying farmers to stop farming, making rules for them to reduce the amount of stocks they can make, to protect the environment. Alright so maybe they don't come in to our homes physically to search through letters to see if we're opposed to their agendas, but they don't have to physically enter, they just monitor social media. So much of what he sites, there's a close equivalent happening right now!!
A HISTORY OF CENTRAL BANKING AND THE ENSLAVEMENT OF MANKIND - Steven Mitford Goodson
Even though I'm an Austrian by nationality and not by economic philosophy I found the talk very interesting. Especially about Wilson who destroyed the German Empire and Austria-Hungary and brought so much pain to Central Europe...
He was a racist and a Democrat very similar to the Democrat party. We have now in the USA that are always getting involved in war and breaking the bank spending too much money.. Joe Biden has been a dictator for four years and I can’t wait to get Kamala and that bunch out of office because they have no morals!! I pray to God Trump gets reelected, and that’s before Joe starts World War III. General Pershing, who was in charge of the American expeditionary forces in Europe, in World War I, did not agree with the treaty of Versailles, and he said before they left “ we will be back!”. He knew that the treaty was going to leave the German and Austrian all on the table, porn, starving, and the United States was anything, but. Sad!! The USA had more than enough resources to help Germany to get back up on their feet and help feed those people. The general wanted a surrender so what happened during World War II would not get to the point where it destroyed Berlin & the entirety of Germany. The US government knew that the European empires were starving, and had been dying by the millions for three years. My gosh, for the love of God Americans would’ve sent food if they would’ve been able to see the conditions over there. The people in the USA are very generous and then there are the elite and that are really snobby and I think there’s a do-gooders, but they’re really just nosy. I hate to say it, but it’s true and I don’t know what it’s like to go through any kind of suffering or I have to go without a cell phone or any modern technology and if they had to add with a pen and paper they couldn’t do it. They need technology to do everything and I think the millennials were probably the last group to learn how to do mathematics found paper after elementary school
Nah, European royality destroyed Europe in WWI, the Kaiser wanted his war badly, and the assassination was the perfect excuse.
Didn’t the South suffer from high tariffs for decades before the war?
Yes. Tarrif of Abominations
Yes. The Tarrif of Abominations
Can you imagine a semester in a course of his?! Those people should consider themselves blessed!
@@emilybaumann5835
DiLorenzo is a congenital fabulist
WOW! I did my own research to confirm with what he said. Incredible, when you don't know histories failures you are doomed to repeat them. The same things are going on right now. Wake up not woke up !
Did you include the Confederate secession documents where slavery was explicitly the reason for secession in your "research"?
Slavery was around in North Africa courtesy of the Arabs !!!
@@pamelaleibowitz3019
Don't forget that!
I'm sorry but at 30:23 HE IS WRONG.
Russia had entered WWI AT THE VERY BEGINNING, august 1914. in fact it was Russian mobilization to support the Serbs that helped start it
maybe Wilson paid the provisional govt to STAY in the war in 1917 , but NOT to enter it.
but that is not what he said
besides the provisional govt in Russia was only in power for a few months from Feb to October 1917. and it was not "before the Revolution" but after the first Revolution which had the Tsar deposed, and before the Bolshevik oct revolution which seized power from the provisional govt
there was no provisional govt when Russia did enter WWI at the very beginning of it for the tsar was still in po0wer
Dr DiLorenzo is shaky on Russian history ( which is one of my specialty interests)
this is understandable but he really should remedy this
This was far from a historical lecture. He just threw out facts and did not cite much or provide historical context for any of his critiques. Glad that you wrote this bc it seemed to me he made a few unsubstantiated claims.
Yeah, and it may be true the Bolsheviks and Lennon claimed to want peace but the Marxist call for revolution and bloodshed wasn't exactly a peaceful ideology and just because a party says that one thing, doesn't mean that is what they believe. Totalitarian regimes need war in order to unite unhappy populace against an "other" in order to prevent criticism of the regime and it likely always would have lead to the bloodshed of the Soviet Union and rise of Communism regardless. The United State over inflates their contribution to European Affairs during that period especially because we anachronistically assign our world influence from today into the 1920s and we just did not have the kind of influence back then as we do today.
Woody was inaugurated on March 05, 1917 and declared war on Germany on April 06, 1917
@@JosephOlson-ld2td 1913
DeLorenzo obviously has axes to grind, and strays very, very far from the historical record, and not just regarding WWI.
In my lifetime. Biden Carter and Obama.
YESSSS!!!!!! Yep, and before us, it was FDR & Woodrow Wilson
@@montrelouisebohon-harris7023 Ever wonder why there are no democrats on mount rushmore?
Jefferson founded the democratic party. Drumpf, Bush 43 and Carter. Dumbasses!
A good list, but I was born in 1939 so I've had to deal with the socialist policies of FDR and the racism of LBJ.
Trump 2024, or another unmitigated disaster.
@@mrbill2600 then you know the only socialist clap trap is the Democratic Party just like it always was. Trump has 20 promises. None of it is socialist. It’s common sense.
He called it "civil war". I always thought it was "war between the states".
Why not call it the treason if 1861 ?
@@a.johnvandyke825 It was the third revolution in United States early history.
Thus a Civil War....
Only the confederate states call it the "war between the states".
It was actually the "war against the states."
Lincoln, Wilson, F. Roosevelt, L. Johnson, Nixon, Biden. They line up chronologically because they each expanded on the damage the previous ones did.
@@aradlatifi2524 Did you even listen to the talk? FDR took a wrecking ball to the economy, through overtly authoritarian means, the legacy of which burdens us today.
There won't be Any More Presidents if tRump-Publicans and their Project 2025 ever control the White House Again! Add them to Your List.
Nixon? Obama was way worse. And Clinton was a disgrace to the office.
Clinton was terrible. He signed NAFTA and all of our good jobs were outsourced to other countries
Obama belongs in there too
I remember an article some years ago after it came out Lincoln was still planning colonization in 1865 that asserted that Lincoln still had a change of heart before the end. The end was only a few weeks later.
History is written by the victors.
Ain't it the truth, pal?
History is not yet known but it will forever be in truth, while failures will not be revered as history in as much as only losses are the sum.
And nobody asked if the VICTOR is a liar or not. Just look at Zionism after WW2.
@@danielfrancoismalherbe6803
Israel was the actually winner of WW2. Everyone else lost EVERYTHING
History is myth agreed upon. Napoleon Bonaparte.
"Power tends to Corrupt; as Power and Revenues grow they Corrupt Absolutely..." - John E. E. Dahlberg Acton
Yes. It appears that the establishment spit shines and polishes the greatest enemies of Americans with the most brilliant luster.
Dead last place between Lincoln and FDR is like asking who is worse for the Roman republic, Julius Caesar or Diocletian.
Philosophically it'd be Lincoln/Ceasar as there will be no last step if there isn't a first one.
Practically it's FDR/Diocletian as they are the one who hammer the last nail into the coffin.
My picks - it's hard to narrow down to just three: 1) Obama 2) FDR 3) Biden (probably a puppet of Obama, or whoever controls Obama!
My top three? Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson.
0bummer-Biden salvaged Mr peanut....
People’s eyes are opening when it comes to the Civil War.
Some idiot on UA-cam stated that "360,000 Union troops died to end slavery"
I had a hard time figuring where to start debunking that bullshit.
Lincoln never freed a single slave in northern states of Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and District of Columbia
@@pretorious700 That bullshit is taught in all public schools. What more people need to get behind is abolishing public education.
@@pretorious700 They ended their own slavery to the union...
The Real Lincoln was the book that opened my eyes and exposed Yankee propaganda for what it was
Teddy Roosevelt he brought about the civil service and created the big government you have. Murray Rothbard progressive era explains it.
TR also credited Lincoln as his "progressive" (big-government) inspiration.
Kennedy unionized the feds and doomed us all... Even Franklin Roosevelt thought that was a bad idea....
Teddy Roosevelt also used the Government to break up monopolies in the market that lead to Crony Capitalism. He did expand Government but major powers like government should be big enough to prevent rule of corporate monopolies as well. Not to mention the national parks and conservation of natural resources from him has blessed us today so not up there with people like Woodrow Wilson and FDR who seemed to only put administrative state Bureaucracies for Power sake. I also think speak softly and carry a big stick is one of the most effective Foreign policies to this date and is why Trump was able to settle down all the wars during his presidency. But yea we definitely have Government over reach from TR especially because people agreed with a lot of his policies which made the ground fertile for power creep from the Presidential seat.
Teddy Roosevelt also deserves a dishonorable mention for third-partying Taft which directly led to the election of Wilson. Why did he third party Taft? Taft was deregulating the federal government...
Teddy one of best presidents
LBJ was instrumental in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, significantly expanding the rights and freedoms of non-white Americans. These expansions of freedoms should be praised and celebrated
You mean they’ve been lying about EVERYTHING ? Who knew? 🤷🏻♂️
Actually, it's DiLorenzo who tells a bunch of whoppers here.
I had only watched about 1/4 of the video when I wrote my response just above. Now that I finished it, I can confidently say that DiLorenzo is the most dishonest human being I have ever heard give a speech. His falsehoods numbered over 100. Absolutely shameless.
Let's be real. This is ideological historical revisionism. Its the same thing the Marxists do, just from the opposite side of the gov't spectrum. There is no "universal truth" to be found in the utterances of an ideologue who forces history through a cheese grater to validate the textbook dogma.
Yes, the ones they love so much for some of the words except for George, Washington and Jefferson Madison. Reagan was great and he was president when I was in junior high and high school. I was a kid and I knew Carter was horrible and I was only eight when he got elected😂😂
@@jimwertherGive us the most egregious five examples please.
This guy left out the most important points and acts of evil of both Wilson and FDR.
Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Obama, and Biden. Notice a trend??? All wanted to expand the Federal Government.
Obama put Muslim Brotherhood members in his cabinet and federal offices. Fact.
"The Truth" is very difficult for the average person to find...much less accept.
Jesus is the truth
We didn't find out until the Soviet Republic collapsed that the 2 nominations for Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury by FDR were both spies for Stalin. Thank God, FDR died, and Truman became President.
The paradox seems to be How do non centralized groups defend against powerful centralized groups without centralizing
You're going to have to stop eschewing the wielding of power, until you can retrain another generation of youth to the truth
Abstract utopian ideology meets the real world. Austrians/Libertarians share the same utopian flaw of so many other ideologies, because it branches out from the same tree of classical liberalism and inherits its utopian world view, optimistic view of human nature and abstract approach to the human experience. A traditional conservative, who understands the human nature/anti-utopian angle can see right through Libertarianism and thus sees little difference between it and modern liberalism on the core fundamental level (regardless of the polar opposite approach to government power).
@@David-fm6goThis is pretty much why I’m no longer libertarian. My conscious decision to set aside my optimism has opened me to see other likely possibilities, caused me to more strongly mistrust government (though it is already a feature of libertarianism), and prompts my family to worry about me! 😆 Sometimes anarchy seems just as attractive to me as so-called social order.
New technology
@@darktimesatrockymountainhi4046 For me it is a tendency to view the world as chaotic, which (cutting out all the American New Right crap) is the core of traditional conservative thought when it comes to foreign policy and the world at large. The world is chaotic and dangerous, but at the same time "most" actors on the world stage are rational (rational does not mean good or reasonable mind you).
Take trade for example, the libertarian and neoliberal dogmatist would assert that free trade is superior because of efficiency, freedom of choice and competition. The realists would counter that there is no such thing as "free trade" and that the world market is dominated by cartels, heavy handed state influence, and concerted efforts to suppress competition through a variety of tactics. Ironically libertarians agree that what presently exists in the world is not free trade either, however they play the "Not real real x" game that socialists also play in this regard. Both agree that the present dynamic is not free trade, libertarians because it hasn't been tried yet, realists/traditional conservatives because free trade is a utopian fantasy that can never exist in a real world.
China cheats on trade because they have every rational incentive to do so, it is hard to argue that they have not benefitted from doing so (but also are and will pay a price for how far they have took it). The fact that the country that does this, is a surveillance state that is shown every willingness to leverage its economic ties to silence criticism of it's oppressive regime only adds to the dynamic. Free trade with a country like China, is a recipe for becoming dominated by a foreign power.
In the ideal world, free trade is suppose to liberate everyone. In the real world, it makes you the prisoner to most manipulative and domineering regime. and yes, you could make this same case against the US itself, which doesn't refute my point, it only strengthens it.
Early American nationalists like Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln were not globalists as they are so often maligned by libertarian ideologues, they were the exact opposite. They saw the world as a dangerous and domineering place and that the only way to secure the victory in the American Revolution was to avoid being dependent on the leading super power of the time (Great Britain). Typically those three are maligned because of their support for the American financial system and the establishment of a national bank, which is the big boogeyman for the libertarian.
However, at the time global finance was dominated by the British and the mindset of the nationalist and realist was that the development of domestic financial capability would lessen the dominance of the British over the American Economy. Britain was keen to use its vast financial resources to dump cheap iron at a loss onto the American market and work through agents to assist pro-free trade elements (usually rail executives and plantation owners) to remove the tariffs on iron. Once the mills of Pennsylvania and Ohio were closed, the British would jack up the price since there was less supply on the global market.
This is how free trade works in reality, its a game that is always manipulated by the cartel with the biggest capital reserves and the most ability to project foreign influence to manipulate the domestic affairs of other countries. Britain in the 1800s, the US in the 20th century and the Chinese in the 21st century.
First let me say that although I disagree with many of this historian’s ‘interpretations’, I am appreciative of the fact that he’s given the right to freely express his opinions. As for the Civil War… his main argument is that “hey, the South voted to succeed and it was their right to do so under a voluntary union”. Well, while nominally that is true, he does seem to forget the fact that there were millions of human beings, born in those southern states, which were totally disenfranchised from having any say in such a decision by virtue of being in bondage. If we are to take a retrospective look at history then would I argue that their rights and wishes should have been considered. After all, I do seem to recall that minor little item in the Declaration of Independence about all men being created equal and everything.
Thank you for your lecture, and please never stop doing what you do.
Would love to see these stories in a debate among contrary scholars to see how they'd respond/react.
Dilorenzo debated Harry Jaffa on Lincoln's legacy. Jaffa just repeated all the clichés you would expect.
DiLorenzo has been debunked more times than we can count.
Censorship still reigns
It is almost obvious that Roosevelt knew of Pearl Harbor.
All US aircraft carriers were absent from Pearl without their escorts.
That's not something a president orders, it's mistakes of people on the ground. Idiot.
He did,they needed a false flag, to get into WW2.
Wait a minute... At 30:30 he claims that Russia entered WWI because Wilson paid Russia off.
Russia was one of the original combatants. They declared war on the Austro-Hungarian empire in defense of Bosnia, which started the defensive alliance cascade that really kicked the war off.
If the presenter can get something so basic factually wrong, it makes me doubt the veracity of his whole lecture.
I don't have the time to go over the lecture with a fine-tooth comb to fact check all his statements, though.
To keep Russia in the war, the Wilson administration extended tens of millions in credits for armaments and military supplies to Kerensky’s government, with J.P. Morgan also raising money in direct support of his cause.
@@betsmiley3588 Respectfully, while that is an excellent point, that's not what the presenter said. The presenter said that Russia ENTERED WWI as a combatant due to being paid off by the Wilson administration, which is blatantly false.
What he said about the Czarist government collapsing during the war, which led to eventually Lenin taking power was true... However you cannot lay this at Wilson's feet.
Look at the treaty Germany made the Leninist government sign to get the Soviet's out of WWI. It made the later Versailles treaty look downright tame in comparison, with the huge swaths of territory and population the Soviets turned over to Germany. I'm not sure the Czarist government would have survived signing a similar treaty to bow out before being overthrown.
And why would the confederacy want low tariffs on foreign trade?
Oh right, because the institution of slavery as well as their land holdings meant they had an economic advantage over any nation who wanted to pay decent compensation for those who make value creation possible. But sure, focus on "voluntariness of political union" while never complaining that you can enforce your court judgments - including bankruptcy - across state lines.
Three words : Barack Hussein Obama.
Who does Dr. D think are the 3 best presidents? I have my own opinion but would be interested in other opinions.
Jefferson Monroe Coolidge.
Never underestimate the value of Washington refusing a kingship.
John Adams, Jefferson, DJT
@@paulcosta8297 DJT is the best we've seen in our lives but he doesn't stand with people like Jefferson, Washington, and Coolidge.
Washington, Reagan, Coolidge.
Biden deserves an honorable mention on this list.
He is the leader.
Are you aware that 10 out of the last 11 recessions were started when a Republican was in the White House since 1953.
... and Trump ... and Obama .... and Dubya ... and can't forget ol' Slick Willie.
All have done contemptible things as President.
This is why I'm Agorist in my principles.
You can't fix something that is inherently corrupt.
@@modernretroradio993I consider myself a Voluntaryist, close yeah?
@@graemekrone6436
Voluntary society is ideal. But, of course, our devil-worshiping government would never allow that.
FDR also moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor and top admirals objected and called Pearl a "mouse trap" and foolish to base the fleet in such a restricted location well within the reach of a Japansee naval task force. FDR ignored them because he was using the fleet as bait for the Japanese and it worked like a charm. FDR once said "In politics nothing happens by accident. If it happens it was planned that way."
The USA couldn't have pivoted to Asia without first enticing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor and as you rightly point out you need to put bait inside the trap. FDR's scheme of empire building is a lot more sophisticated than just setting the Pearl Harbor trap. Japan started the invasion of China back in 1931 and from then on until 1941 the US had kept exporting to Japan materials such as oil and scrap metal which were essential for the invasion. Only by 1941 did US ban the export of those materials and demanded complete Japan withdrawal from China. Japan by then was knee deep inside China and would be suicidal if she complied with the demand for withdrawal. In other words, Japan was cornered and had no choice but to attack PH. The US had sacrificed many soldiers and resources in defeating Japan but also gained tremendously - an island in the western Pacific Ocean under USA permanent control. In my opinion (not an American) FDR is the brightest geopolitical strategist among all US presidents. Wonder why the US could elect such a far sighted individual as president back then.
Fantastic video and a great public service.
We used to be free..
Any president whose been a member of the CFR.
Oh wait, that's all of them.
Except Trump lol
I would be interested in knowing Mr. DiLorenzo's opinion of president James Buchanan.
I haven't looked at the video but my three would be:
1) Woodrow Wilson - Ironically if Teddy Roosevelt doesn't pick Taft as his successor, who was a disaster, and runs as a third party, Taft or ANY OTHER candidate beats Wilson. Roosevelt and Taft voters combined beat Wilson more than Bush Sr. would have beat Clinton if Ross Perot doesn't run.
2) FDR - He is the ONLY President to break with Washington's precedence to run and win more than three terms. He also created the super government we have today with all the entitlements.
3) Buchanan - Completely ineffective and just ran out the clock on tough issues with his presidency leaving a Civil War for his successor.
Update: I got two out of the three. Lincoln took the hit for cleaning up Buchanan, Pierce and Fillmore though Buchanan did the most damage.
American doughboys went to France in 1917 to save the world for Democracy. When they came home they couldn't buy a beer. 😢
There's another myth which needs to busted here. The notion of a "Unified South" or a "Consolidated Confederacy" against the Union is a total lie. Many (poor) Southern whites actually opposed the war.
The only reason that so many Southern whites signed up to fight in the first year was ... they had to. Peer pressure was key, along with the initial propaganda surge that the Union was "violating their states' rights." Also the need for food and clothing was so great for so many of them, since many of them were poor, on large account because of the corrosive effects of slavery on free enterprise. A n honest laborer cannot compete with free labor, after all.
When it comes to desertion rates among soldiers, they were much higher among the Confederate armies compared to Union forces. One of the most remarkable accounts was during Union General William Tecumseh Sherman's "March to the Sea," during which he waged total war from Atlanta to Savannah. His army actually grew in size, to such an extent he had to turn away volunteers. Many of those new recruits were white Southerners, as well as freed blacks.
This Magnolia Myth of a "Courageous yet Defeated South" filled with liberty-minded people standing up to an abusive Union federal government is simply not true.
I encourage everyone to read the following books for more information and to verify my comments:
Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President, by Thomas L. Krannawitter
War Within a War; the Confederacy Against Itself, by Carleton Beals
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, by James W. Loewen
I worked at Dunleith Plantation. There I got familiar with Dahlgren. He was put in command of Mississippi forces and demoted for refusing to commit his forces to the Confederacy at large. This was a common attitude in the South. How can you have a cohesive strategy when local forces stay local?
@@nomadmarauder-dw9re EXACTLY, which completely undermines the whole political theory of secession, which Dr. DiLorenzo espouses.
If secession is legal, can we kick states OUT?
“Local forces”, i.e., a decentralized military, requires real consensus building - which severely limits the ability of a national government continually fighting foreign wars. Sounds like a good thing to me. Thomas Jefferson said “he feared a central bank more than a standing professional army”, and he was not alone with this. What does this tell us? Many of the Founders opposed central banking AND a standing professional army [both of which go together, btw]! Why else does the 2nd amendment refer to “a well regulated militia”…? Let’s contend for a decentralized military.., and everything else!
The increase in the desertion Rate in the Confederate did not occur until the late winter of 1864 and up through March/April or 1865. As for the Sherman, it was the increase in free slaves marching with his column that forced him turn them away, not white southern men.
I learnt from Lincoln.
My spouse thought I was abusive and tried to leave, so I pulled out my guns and forced them to stay.
I preserved our union.
I deserve a statue in my honour as the Saviour of Marriage.
I learnt from Lincoln.
So you kept your slaves?
@@Smokr What? Lincoln supported slavery, but kept no direct slave. Rather, he aggressed against the southern people, shaking them down as tax livestock -commanding them to pay up, or face invasion, bloodshed, and force.
About this, Lincoln said in his First Message to the U.S. Congress, on July 4, 1861:
"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40% federal sales tax on imports to South under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)."
"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
@@mani8512. Biput Lincoln ran as the nominee of the newly formed Republican Party, which was adamantly opposed to the EXPANSION of slavery into new territories. This was enough for those first seven deep southern states to secede (unconstitutionally) from the Union before Lincoln ever took office. Lincoln within his party was a moderate, not yet an abolitionist.
Personally Lincoln hated and despised slavery, in part because of his own personal history- his father used to hire him out for heavy manual labor, for which he never received any of the money his father was paid.
And in his “house divided” speech, he made it clear that he didn’t think the nation could forever be half slave and half free. He said that in the end it would all become one or the other. Lincoln’s first inaugural speech was an attempt to prevent a civil war, which is why he stated that he had neither the power legally, nor the intention of disturbing slavery in those STATES (not US Territories) where it already existed.
But he, and most Union states never accepted the opinion that secession was legal in the way that the seven, and later four more states seceded. To dissolve the Union, the process had to be the same as that which amended the Constitution. Namely, a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress, and then 3/4 of the states would have to vote in favor of dissolution. The only other option was through constitutional conventions, but again, it would need the agreement of 3/4 of all the states, something that wasn’t going to happen.
That is the ONLY process for revoking the Constitution, and dissolving the Union.
As for the Emancipation, Lincoln undertook that as a war measure, and it is very clear that it applied to those states, and portion of states still in a state of active rebellion. It was as the war went on that Lincoln gradually came to realize that there had to be “a new birth of freedom” and that slavery, the underlying cause of the war (look at the seceding states Ordinances of Secession), would have to go. Lincoln’s position on slavery gradually moved toward abolition, and the cause of that movement was the incredible carnage of the Civil War.
Did your spouse want to leave because she held slaves and you wanted to free them?
@@Bgrosz1 What a DA
333,000,000 - U.S. population
83,250,000- 1/4 of population-that would have the artificial limbs after the Civil War….
I strongly disagree with a lot of his viewpoints but I’m proud that the university I attended was at least open minded enough to have someone like this as a faculty member
I just want a 24h stream of DiLorenzo, never get tired of his lectures! 🤴
Fireside rants with whiskey and cigar.
AMEN! HE'S AWSOME 😊
Very informative. The three presidents he lists were never my favorites, though i did hold Lincoln in high regard until judge Napolitano spoke of his abuses. Plenty of specifics in this presentation to support his position. Much to think about.
This is exactly why I despise all governments around the world, hence I consider myself a Voluntaryist!
The Lincoln plan to colonize back to Africa would make him the greatest president in my book.
It certainly would have gone a long way towards making up for all the other terrible things he did.
@@Powertuber1000 Grant was worse than Lincoln, he started the Liberal Deep State. It was Grant who started the "Justice" Department.
@@allistairlicorice310 Such as?
@@coleparker Income tax, arresting political opponents including journalists and sitting politicians without trial, creating the draft, ordering the army to fire upon civilians who protested said draft. I would go on but your attention span probably isn't the greatest.
@@allistairlicorice310 First of all the Income Tax was a recognized Constitutional measure under the Federal Revenue act to pay for emergency measures, and was removed after the war. But was reenacted again 1894. Secondly, the establishment of a draft was not prohibited by any Constitution, but enforce compliance to a service was first done by George Washington himself at Valley Forge. As for the Army firing on the NY protesters, yes that was done, but do not forget that protest was not peaceful by any means. Lynchings of black men was done and black childrens orphanage was burned down, and troops were attacked. FYI since the local Militia AKA was already called up Federal troops took their place, and such actions they took, still take place even today, eg. George Floyd Riots. As for arresting political opponents, and sitting politicians. I will have to really check into that.
Finally, with respects to your comment, you are reflection of this lecturer. No real research behind it, just charges and statements. Also FYI, my some of my ancestors fought for the Confederacy, one of whom, was a Brigadier General at the Battle of Shiloh, so I have no reason to be particularly fond of Lincoln.
THIS WAS EXCELLENT! THANK YOU 😊
All three Obama terms
Dr. D. shuts it down again... 🤭💪
Wilson didn't wait 3 months to ask to declare war, it was less than one month--March 4 to April 2.
3 worst Prez pre-civil war Franklin Pierce, Mallard Fillmore & James Buchanan. 8OO,OOO estimated civil war dead
While I'm loathe to hear that information opposed to std school of thinking is refreshing. It is refreshing to hear information that is not in the standard school of thought. I like hearing this kind of information.
I used to think that if the US had stayed out of WW1, there would not have been a WWIi, but now I know that there very likely would not have been a Cold War, either.
WW2 and the Cold War were continuations of ww1.
The Rothschilds have been starting wars since the late eighteenth century.
Implying there weren't cold wars and world wars between your colonial powers before WW1.
@@tritium1998 Hardly. We declared war on Spain in 1898 over Cuba. We then smashed the ill prepared Spanish fleet and became an empire which, as it turned us into a modernize Roman Empire. The United States has been at war with someone in many places ever since. Woodrow Wilson just barely got us involved in WWI. Had we not fought in WWI, there would not have been a WWII. No WWII might well have prevented a Cold War between the US and the USSR.
It's so easy to believe that if you do nothing there will be peace, but history shows otherwise.
It's like thinking if you never stand up to bullies there will be no bullies or if you never fight crime there will be no crime. Of course, the opposite is true.
Did you kick Walter block out of the mises institute for disagreeing on the Israeli/Gaza war?
Yep
Yes unfortunately he became a bloodthirsty warmonger. Could be due to old age
Block wasn’t exactly strong on the pandemic either. Very disappointing.
Lorenzo no, Hoppe yes
@@lawtutoring the man spent his entire career rallying against the state. I'm not sure that two positions outside of the consensus should render him no longer qualified.
Before I watch, let me guess:
1. Lincoln
2. Wilson
3. LBJ
Honorable mention: FDR
Lincoln did the most damage to federalism. Wilson's downstream of that, FDR's downstream of Wilson, and LBJ's downstream of FDR.
3:18 You were right
Dishonorable mention: DJT.
@@barfo281you voted for the guy who helped start the Iraq war?
@@barfo281the one whose senility has been concealed by the people around him for years, while taxpayers gave hundreds of billions to the corrupt country where his son had a cushy fake job?
First time I've heard someone matching my 3 worst president list .
I never understood why southern states never pressed their right to succeed in the US Supreme Court. Anu ideas?
War sounded glorious?
The same as the reason for the secession, they were getting outvoted in elections because there A: were more northerners B: the northerners were increasing in populace faster C: At least in part due to huge incomes of Euro migrants like Germans who were strictly anti-slavery to Northern states. Even if they retained slavery as an institution they would have no political 'capital' in the country and that inevitability made secession even outright war seem desirable.
@@MarikHavair I understand this position, but it still doesn't directly address the question as to why not press your case - the right of a state to succeed from the union - directly to the Supreme Court.
Wilson and FDR by a long way.
Thanks for that. First time I've heard this stuff about Lincoln.
Don't believe what you heard here. DiLorenzo is a well-known "Lost Causer", who twists history around to fit his narrative. Just as it relates to Lincoln, consider the fact that he made no mention of Marbury vs. Madison, the Articles of Secession of every single state of the Confederacy, every one of which focused on slavery, and Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech. That's just a start. DiLorenzo is a propagandist at best, and a full blown liar at worst.
Now that I finished watching the video, I can confidently say that DiLorenzo is the most dishonest person I have ever heard give a speech. The man is utterly shameless. Not a word of truth contained therein.
@@jimwertherBS your liar!🤡
@@jimwerthercrap comment, Wilson and FDR were atrocious
@@ram76921
See, facts are wonderful things. I'm no fan of Wilson or FDR, but DiLorenzo is a congenital fabulist.
BIDEN , OBAMA , CLINTON
How many 10s of millions of children were never born because their forefathers were killed in lincolns war.
Lincoln played no role in the causality of the war.
@@MarikHavair
Not none, but very limited.
My ancestors fought on both sides, but the first shots were fired by the Confederates in SC.
@@coleparker why do you think Lincoln garrisoned ft sumpter?
@@TheLifesentence2278 Fort Sumter was a permanent garrison before Lincoln was Elected. What he tried to do was reinforce it.
short list. LBJ has to be 3B.
Wilson is garbage, but Lincoln and Fdr make my blood boil.
LBJ should be way higher on everyone’s list. Signing the civil rights act rapidly accelerated America’s decline.
Can you give a short example of Lincoln ? TX. Fdr, yes.
why Lincoln
They are all evil war mongering sociopaths. God help us 🙏
@@chasekemmerling1676He was a tyrant and he centralized power, which always leads to corruption and arbitrary or even unintentional tyranny/injustice.
Truly if only Adam and Eve had followed Our Father's instruction... but we are here now.
The only Christianity is Eastern Orthodoxy
@@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese algorithms matter 😂
Lincoln formed the original H.O.A. in 1861.
FDR sent our Ambassador to France, William Bullit to Poland to convince the Poles to provoke a German invasion to have England and France to declare war on Germany .
true america died in 1865 & it has been in decline ever since it takes a long time for big nations to die
Are you in charge of deciding what America is just because you surrendered?
Amazing summary. Smedley! Check out his 1931 Congressional Testimony...
NASA NOT SO FUNNY
JFK was appalled when he found out the OSS had not only brought over the 3rd reisch practically intact but realized how sick the deep state was (from ties to the mafia to engineering with the UK WW1, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Depression, WW2) and made his way to the presidency, he thought to stop it. His archrival, ghwb, a former double agent and de facto COO of the cia, helped him get elected, to manipulate him for eight years (Norma Jean, and more).
But JFK was going to outsmart them. The goons were setting up NASA (NAZI) as a money laundering scheme. Any undergrad engineer knows there are practical barriers to putting something in space that requires oxygen and a toilet too. The radiation, the vacuum, the temperature extremes, each singly make anything less than Space Mountain too shabby for the ride. The space race was much easier on Americans than the 'arms' race. Why did the Soviet Union need a Cold War? Same reason a whore needs a pimp. Like they really cared if Vietnam went Red, or thought they could out last US.
So JFK baited them and then fucked them with "We'll do it inside the decade,” after all WW2 only took 3-4 years to destroy Europe, including 2000 years worth of Jewish communities, as well as who knows how much of Asia. Throwing a U-Boat at the moon is surely a cakewalk. ("Don't call me Shirley", Buzz Aldrin) My bet is ideally he was going to wait for his lame duck term willing to embarrass himself as a liar to the World, at the same time ending the oligarchy, or at least exposing it for All to see (like we do now). Maybe he was going to spill the beans in Dallas. BTW, They must have had tons of shit on his brothers too.
God bless Thomas DiLorenzo the "Stonewall" of southern literary vindication of the Confederacy. Deo Vindice
Seems like we’re always fighting communism.
Obama, Biden, Bush 2, FDR
🤡
You only forgot a few: Clinton, Bush 1, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Teddy, Grant, Johnson, Jackson,...and I am sure many others that we just don't have the facts on yet.
Hard to narrow it down to 3 but I would go with Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. Notice any connections? And if I had a fourth vote I would probably go with Wilson again. The Federal Reserve and WW1 make him the best worst President.
Totally agree with one of the comments- The three Stooges (Carter, Obama and FJB)
Wasn't FDR prejudice against germans?
He was prejudice against everyone not like him.
FDR was a damned cripple supremacist.
A disablist even, hehe.
he didn't like jews I know that
If Union troops had left Fort Sumter, there may have never been a war between the States.
I took for granted how history is written by the winners.
Thank you . ❤
Thanks!
I like this guy already.
Every Democrati from Wils o n to FJB
WE HAVE COME SO FAR!!! Just 30 years ago, everything DiLorenzo is saying was unthinkable!!
Sad
IMHO