Awesome lecture (even without the slides), you can't get this all out of just one history book, it takes many different sources to sow this important piece of American history together. I especially appreciated and enjoyed the insight you provided in the sentiments of the compromise's key actors.
It makes no difference that you cannot see the slides because the camera people in the audio/visual department at Gettysburg are incompetent. I wish it would’ve seen us a quick glimpse of the slide with the wrong kind of lens like a white angle and the back of peoples heads. They really need to get someone in there that knows what they’re doing.
in 2020, how familiar the spirit of that time seems, the divisive rhetoric and violence brought on by that rhetoric are here to bedevil again...and the realization that compromise is a bandaid that cannot staunch the flow from the wounds, has become apparent once more
Magnificent lecture discussing a key way mark in US history in its incredible complexity. I had thought I somewhat understood this. But I was very very wrong. That you intelligently conveyed the complexity and danger of the moment in an hour in a compelling lecture is a remarkable achievement. FYI: I always had regarded the 3/5 clause as more an anti slavery clause than a pro-slavery clause. It set up northern control of the House meaning of that the balance north and south of Statehood became key. In the end those 60 extra seats were swamped. Counting all Blacks after the was had the long term ironic effect of enabling Jim Crow. I’m the 1880s and 1890s Such a bloody history
It was a compromise-compromise at the time it was written. It was not intended to be just. It was a desperate attempt to keep the country together. Even in the late 1790's the south could see which way the wind was blowing regarding population, production, industry ect.
It was just that at the time... at compromise. Remember it's the 1790's. It was a desperate attempt to keep the country together when it was written. The south already back then could see which way the wind was blowing regarding the Northern advantage in population, industry, production, money ect. I mean... the more you look at it... there was not a time, during the Revolution or afterward, when the north and south were not at odds over power and slavery. They were already really pissed by 1800. The Civil War really was inevitable. And... in 2024 it appears the power issue was never solved.
This 10-11 years gave more power to the North and brought a book from Harriet Beecher Stowe, which book change United Kingdom and France to neutral in the conflict.
Most American history classes tend to go "There was a REVOLUTION, thensomeotherstuff, CIVIL WAR, thennotmuchhappeneduntil WORLD WAR I...". It's good to see some focus on this period.
It may be. I think for the Northern triumph this 10 years was crucial important. So the Texan and Deep South slave import and the new arrived people from Northern states and Europe decreased the slave population percentage in the border states. St Louis became solid unionist city during this 10 years in Missouri and only the small Dixie with dense slave population remained Confederacy supporter there. Under this 10 years, Kentucky alone sent almost 70 000 slaves to Texas and Deep South and Kentucky's interest in the slavery system became smaller and smaller year by year to be ally with Confederate states in 1861. Only minority counties were Confederate supporter in Kentucky as Western Kentucky. Lincoln thought Kentucky was the most important to hold in the Unio for the triumph. Chicago and Northern Illinois became enough populated to change Illinois for stronger unionist state. New pro unionist states were founded as Minnesota and Kansas. The railroad connection become strong in the Northern states in these years.
@@avenaoat Even Virginia and Tennessee began sending slaves to Louisiana, and both of those states voted against secession just prior to the bombardment of Fort Sumter. There were pockets of Unionism in even the most staunch Confederate states. It gives you the idea of the panic on part of the slave owning class and the aristocratic legislatures to start a war before the inevitable happened: slavery losing out completely by natural means.
@@OxfordPatriot Mexico abolished the slaves in 1829 (before the British 1836 or the French in 1848 !) so the Texan settlers could not bring many slaves untill 1836. By 1840 11 000 slaves were in Texas, by 1850 58 000 slaves and in 1860 182 000 slaves were in Texas! Texas showed 30,2% slaves in 1860! In 1860 the more Confederate states showed these data Arkansas 25,5% slaves, Lousiana 46,9% slaves, Alabama 45,1% slaves, Georgia 43,7% slaves, Florida 44% slaves, Tennessee 24,8% slaves, North Carolina 33,4% slaves, South Carolina 57,2% slaves, Mississipi 55,2% slaves and the intact Virginia (East and West Virginia) 30,7% slaves but the East part of the whole Virginia had 38,6% slaves. In the other case the Border state data shows this: in 1860 Missouri 9,7% slaves, Maryland 12,7 % slaves, Delaware 1,6% slaves, Kentucky 19,5% slaves and the future West Virginia 4,7 % slave population! 1. The additional 10 years changed the border states less slavery system economial dependent. The slave import changed Texas to be more slavery system economial area and Texas and the deep south mixed themselves in the slavery system economy deeper and deeper year after year. 2. The Cotton King was the main couse which changed the views of the people in the South. The cotton King effect had role in Virginia they exported slaves for cotton money. The most unionist sympatizers lived in Tennessee mainly in the free of cotton East Tennessee ( 24,8% slaves), in North Carolina the free of cotton West part of North Carolina (33,4% slaves), in Arkansas in the free of cotton Ozark region (25,5% slaves). The few exception were as Northern Alabama, Northern Georgia, Lousiana or Mississipi where there were some county with higher slavery population and together white unionist sympatizers. 3. In the other hand, West Virginia was most divided area among the border states, there were about almost equal unionist soldiers and confederate soldiers during the Civil War. The near to Ohio and Pennsylvania counties were most unionist and during the Civil War West Virginia got some strong confederacy sympatizer counties as "special presents" from the USA. For example Mercer county was the most Confederate sympatizer, because they gave more than 75% of the soldiers to the South and they was annexed in 1864 only when the US Army occupied the Grienbier River valley. Delaware the other exception no independent regiment was from Delaware in the Confederate Army, there were from Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and naturaly from the future West Virginia, but Delaware was the most solid unionist among the border states. 4. I think Kentucky, Maryland or Missouri did not give 2/3 of their soldiers to the Union in 1850, because the Texan (+ Deep South) slave import did not effect strongly and less Europen and Northern people arrived there. St Louis became from 77 000 city in 1850 a 160 000 city in 1860, Baltimore from 169 000 in 1850 a 212 000 city in 1860. 5. Southern part of Illinois had a little Southern sentiment, but not too strong, so Northern Illinois which was solid unionist began to dominate the state. Chicago became from 30 000 city in 1850 a 112 000 city in 1860. 6. I step out from the 1850-1860 years. I think the sotherners who arrived to the northern states from 1810-1860 were also very important to change the North more powerfull. I want to say look at Lincoln's life, he was born in Kentucky and his family went to Indiana and later to Illinois. Similar families were lost for the South, because less northerners moved to South so not only Northeasterners and the European immigrants changed the Mid West to be STRONG UNIONISTS BASTION, but the similar families as Lincoln's from the South!
@@avenaoat My dads side arrived in Virginia but in the early 1800s moved to Southern Indiana. All Union veterans. 4th great grandad died in the 49th Indiana Infantry. Lots of Southerners especially if you include southern families who migrated North before the Civil War.
Discussing issues with slavers in 1850 is like trying to discuss issues with modern liberals. They only hear what they want to hear and if you disagree they're willing to destroy you rather than allow you to disagree.
17:30 Listen to our lecturer describe the struggle to elect a speaker of the House in late 1849. Sounds a lot like 2023 and 2024. It is a precursor to domestic conflict.
Consider the 3/5 clause like this: the South received a boost in voting power for WEALTH. The enslaved could not vote, but the oligarchs could. That is not so far from Citizens United or JD Vance's proposed changes to voting power if Trump wins in 2024.
Never apologize for an excellent lecture except when you could have made it even better by introducing even more facts. IMO the lecture was excellent and could have been even better had it been longer with the introduction of even more facts.
6:50 is a serious error, and totally misrepresents the situation. Plain numbers in the South made them the majority, and left them in control of Congress. The 3/5ths compromise made the South LESS disproportionate. It created the deadlock which allowed abolitionists to challenge the spreading of slavery. It bought time for men of courage to gather enough power to end slavery.
The 3/5ths compromise came about at a totally different time in the nation's history than the civil war. It was not intended to be just... it was intended to keep the country together. It was drafted in the 1790's....
Outstanding. I regret that I can not attend. However, your cowardly practice of blocking comments, is reprehensible. You will fail to create public support on this vehicle using these gutless tactics.
Awesome lecture (even without the slides), you can't get this all out of just one history book, it takes many different sources to sow this important piece of American history together. I especially appreciated and enjoyed the insight you provided in the sentiments of the compromise's key actors.
Brilliant talk! I wish I could have seen the slides though.
It makes no difference that you cannot see the slides because the camera people in the audio/visual department at Gettysburg are incompetent. I wish it would’ve seen us a quick glimpse of the slide with the wrong kind of lens like a white angle and the back of peoples heads. They really need to get someone in there that knows what they’re doing.
@@jaywinters2483 Calm down, have some dip.
@@joshuakatherine6251racist insults dont change facts...
@@theConservativeTAKE huh? What did I say?
in 2020, how familiar the spirit of that time seems,
the divisive rhetoric and violence brought on by that rhetoric are here to
bedevil again...and the realization that compromise is a bandaid
that cannot staunch the flow from the wounds, has become apparent
once more
Excellent lecture! One note: I’d rather see the slides than the speaker when watching a lecture
Well done sir!
This gentleman tells a story quite very well. Always a plawasure to hear his lectures - especially out on the battleground.
Magnificent lecture discussing a key way mark in US history in its incredible complexity. I had thought I somewhat understood this. But I was very very wrong. That you intelligently conveyed the complexity and danger of the moment in an hour in a compelling lecture is a remarkable achievement.
FYI: I always had regarded the 3/5 clause as more an anti slavery clause than a pro-slavery clause. It set up northern control of the House meaning of that the balance north and south of Statehood became key. In the end those 60 extra seats were swamped. Counting all Blacks after the was had the long term ironic effect of enabling Jim Crow. I’m the 1880s and 1890s Such a bloody history
It was a compromise-compromise at the time it was written. It was not intended to be just. It was a desperate attempt to keep the country together. Even in the late 1790's the south could see which way the wind was blowing regarding population, production, industry ect.
It was just that at the time... at compromise. Remember it's the 1790's. It was a desperate attempt to keep the country together when it was written. The south already back then could see which way the wind was blowing regarding the Northern advantage in population, industry, production, money ect.
I mean... the more you look at it... there was not a time, during the Revolution or afterward, when the north and south were not at odds over power and slavery. They were already really pissed by 1800. The Civil War really was inevitable.
And... in 2024 it appears the power issue was never solved.
The camera angle usually allows viewers to follow the slides,what happened?
MANC2311 it would be a great Audio Book the slide show sucked.
Slideshow not really needed. The lecture was sufficient
@@marymoriarity2555 true but it was lazy...
Very informative talk.
Great lecturer! Could you guys do a lecture on the compromise of 1832?
This 10-11 years gave more power to the North and brought a book from Harriet Beecher Stowe, which book change United Kingdom and France to neutral in the conflict.
What a marvelous lecture. Thank you for uploading it.
You really must get yourselves a film editor. Watching a speaker without seeing the slides does not an interesting video make... 🤔
Archangel Michael are you serious?
If you're suggesting we listen to this as a radio program, then why bother making a video at all?
Um, ok. Bye
There's all kinds of copyright issues if they display the slides. There might be copyrighted photos they can't use if they put it on video.
I wonder why they often dint include the slideshows with some lectures
Most American history classes tend to go "There was a REVOLUTION, thensomeotherstuff, CIVIL WAR, thennotmuchhappeneduntil WORLD WAR I...". It's good to see some focus on this period.
Very good lecture Bravo!
I think the inevitable civil war would be less bloody and less destructive if it began in 1850 from those circumstances.
It may be. I think for the Northern triumph this 10 years was crucial important. So the Texan and Deep South slave import and the new arrived people from Northern states and Europe decreased the slave population percentage in the border states. St Louis became solid unionist city during this 10 years in Missouri and only the small Dixie with dense slave population remained Confederacy supporter there. Under this 10 years, Kentucky alone sent almost 70 000 slaves to Texas and Deep South and Kentucky's interest in the slavery system became smaller and smaller year by year to be ally with Confederate states in 1861. Only minority counties were Confederate supporter in Kentucky as Western Kentucky. Lincoln thought Kentucky was the most important to hold in the Unio for the triumph. Chicago and Northern Illinois became enough populated to change Illinois for stronger unionist state. New pro unionist states were founded as Minnesota and Kansas. The railroad connection become strong in the Northern states in these years.
@@avenaoat Even Virginia and Tennessee began sending slaves to Louisiana, and both of those states voted against secession just prior to the bombardment of Fort Sumter. There were pockets of Unionism in even the most staunch Confederate states. It gives you the idea of the panic on part of the slave owning class and the aristocratic legislatures to start a war before the inevitable happened: slavery losing out completely by natural means.
@@OxfordPatriot Mexico abolished the slaves in 1829 (before the British 1836 or the French in 1848 !) so the Texan settlers could not bring many slaves untill 1836. By 1840 11 000 slaves were in Texas, by 1850 58 000 slaves and in 1860 182 000 slaves were in Texas! Texas showed 30,2% slaves in 1860! In 1860 the more Confederate states showed these data Arkansas 25,5% slaves, Lousiana 46,9% slaves, Alabama 45,1% slaves, Georgia 43,7% slaves, Florida 44% slaves, Tennessee 24,8% slaves, North Carolina 33,4% slaves, South Carolina 57,2% slaves, Mississipi 55,2% slaves and the intact Virginia (East and West Virginia) 30,7% slaves but the East part of the whole Virginia had 38,6% slaves.
In the other case the Border state data shows this:
in 1860 Missouri 9,7% slaves, Maryland 12,7 % slaves, Delaware 1,6% slaves, Kentucky 19,5% slaves and the future West Virginia 4,7 % slave population!
1. The additional 10 years changed the border states less slavery system economial dependent. The slave import changed Texas to be more slavery system economial area and Texas and the deep south mixed themselves in the slavery system economy deeper and deeper year after year.
2. The Cotton King was the main couse which changed the views of the people in the South. The cotton King effect had role in Virginia they exported slaves for cotton money. The most unionist sympatizers lived in Tennessee mainly in the free of cotton East Tennessee ( 24,8% slaves), in North Carolina the free of cotton West part of North Carolina (33,4% slaves), in Arkansas in the free of cotton Ozark region (25,5% slaves). The few exception were as Northern Alabama, Northern Georgia, Lousiana or Mississipi where there were some county with higher slavery population and together white unionist sympatizers.
3. In the other hand, West Virginia was most divided area among the border states, there were about almost equal unionist soldiers and confederate soldiers during the Civil War. The near to Ohio and Pennsylvania counties were most unionist and during the Civil War West Virginia got some strong confederacy sympatizer counties as "special presents" from the USA.
For example Mercer county was the most Confederate sympatizer, because they gave more than 75% of the soldiers to the South and they was annexed in 1864 only when the US Army occupied the Grienbier River valley.
Delaware the other exception no independent regiment was from Delaware in the Confederate Army, there were from Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and naturaly from the future West Virginia, but Delaware was the most solid unionist among the border states.
4. I think Kentucky, Maryland or Missouri did not give 2/3 of their soldiers to the Union in 1850, because the Texan (+ Deep South) slave import did not effect strongly and less Europen and Northern people arrived there. St Louis became from 77 000 city in 1850 a 160 000 city in 1860, Baltimore from 169 000 in 1850 a 212 000 city in 1860.
5. Southern part of Illinois had a little Southern sentiment, but not too strong, so Northern Illinois which was solid unionist began to dominate the state. Chicago became from 30 000 city in 1850 a 112 000 city in 1860.
6. I step out from the 1850-1860 years. I think the sotherners who arrived to the northern states from 1810-1860 were also very important to change the North more powerfull. I want to say look at Lincoln's life, he was born in Kentucky and his family went to Indiana and later to Illinois. Similar families were lost for the South, because less northerners moved to South so not only Northeasterners and the European immigrants changed the Mid West to be STRONG UNIONISTS BASTION, but the similar families as Lincoln's from the South!
@@avenaoat My dads side arrived in Virginia but in the early 1800s moved to Southern Indiana. All Union veterans. 4th great grandad died in the 49th Indiana Infantry. Lots of Southerners especially if you include southern families who migrated North before the Civil War.
Great job!
great lecture
So many of these lectures would be better with the visuals the presenter is using. I see no reason why the camera work is not better at times.
Yay! John Hoptak! Good teacher!
Discussing issues with slavers in 1850 is like trying to discuss issues with modern liberals. They only hear what they want to hear and if you disagree they're willing to destroy you rather than allow you to disagree.
@ML JimmyJohns How so?
Cori Bush will call you a racist rather than disagree.
@@jacobmasters438 Indy is right...and its only worse now
@@theConservativeTAKEworse now....
17:30 Listen to our lecturer describe the struggle to elect a speaker of the House in late 1849. Sounds a lot like 2023 and 2024. It is a precursor to domestic conflict.
Consider the 3/5 clause like this: the South received a boost in voting power for WEALTH. The enslaved could not vote, but the oligarchs could.
That is not so far from Citizens United or JD Vance's proposed changes to voting power if Trump wins in 2024.
Never apologize for an excellent lecture except when you could have made it even better by introducing even more facts. IMO the lecture was excellent and could have been even better had it been longer with the introduction of even more facts.
ANOTHER PRESENTATION WHERE THE SLIDES ARE NOT SHOWN. Please stop doing this.
Peonage in Mexico WAS slavery. Unenforced laws are meaningless. So many mistakes in the first seventeen minutes I'm outta here.
6:50 is a serious error, and totally misrepresents the situation. Plain numbers in the South made them the majority, and left them in control of Congress. The 3/5ths compromise made the South LESS disproportionate. It created the deadlock which allowed abolitionists to challenge the spreading of slavery. It bought time for men of courage to gather enough power to end slavery.
The 3/5ths compromise came about at a totally different time in the nation's history than the civil war. It was not intended to be just... it was intended to keep the country together. It was drafted in the 1790's....
Outstanding. I regret that I can not attend.
However, your cowardly practice of blocking comments, is reprehensible. You will fail to create public support on this vehicle using these gutless tactics.