From a Brazilian perspective, this lecture was fascinating.To me me, a never seen insight into Texas history, American history and the troubles of the 19th century.Im also a bit angry by how the mainstream USA media portray southern USA people in general given that these series of lectures are such a contradiction of those stereotypes.Overall Im curious to see how American history will play out from now on.
tengokuro Brazil is a National Republic of separate states, but together they form one nation. Meanwhile the United States never did this to form a single nation, they were always 13 separate Nations that United to form an international federal republic, so that each state was a separate Sovereign Nation into itself. So it's important to remember that there's a difference between International sovereignty and domestic sovereignty for States. The difference between the North and South, was that the north claimed that the states were only domestically Sovereign, while the South cleaned that they were internationally sovereign. That is the entire Crux of the American Civil War.
Brion is the Boss. No one will step in the ring to debate him. His McClanahan Academy is better than any class I had in college. He has a deep understanding of the constitution and takes you through history from a constitutional perspective. He is document based. He knows the intellectual arguments in academia but sticks to the primary documents. The result is high quality history.
I have all due respect for Brion McClanahan with his PhD and his extensive understanding of the Constitution. I'm just a dumb ass with a BS in Chemistry from Wofford College, but the FACT of law is that the Constitution is GONE, NULL, VOID, NEVER TO COME BACK due to martial law since 75000 troops were called up to INVADE the South. All good Southerners need to wake up. The first Executive Order (#1) was issued by President Abraham Lincoln, and it brought martial law (military law) into America because of the War Between the States. It has never been repealed and is still in effect. "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule… And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in time of great crisis have, from at least the Civil War, in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency". Congressional Report No. 93-549, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Emergency Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency, page 1, November 19, 1973, pursuant to Senate Res. 9, pub. By the U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Wash D.C. According to the Supreme Court, "Congress has made little or no distinction between a state of national emergency and a state of war." Brown vs. Bernstein, D.C. pa., 49 F. Supp. 728, 732. According to the “Law of Nations”, "the most immediate effect of a state of war is that it activates the Law of War itself." And according to the Law of War, "martial law is obtained during a state of war and in truth and reality, is no law at all." “While the union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not.” First black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall, delivered in a bicentennial speech at Maui, Hawaii on 6 May 1987. "The 'original republic', the one for which our forefathers fought face to face, hand to hand, exists only in the minds of academics and fundamentalist patriots. The republic created in 1789 is long gone. It died with the 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil War." Columbia Law Professor George P. Fletcher in the June 23rd, 1997 issue of 'The New Republic', page 14. The Constitution is suspended (has no effect) during a time of war: "There is no limit to the powers that may be exerted in such cases save those which are found in the laws and usages of war....In such cases the laws of war (no law at all) take the place of the Constitution and the laws of the United States as applied in time of peace" (New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 Wall. 394)
The below quote says it all. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
***** " You are just making shit up, right? Have you no shame or pride to somehow restrain your ignorant readiness to lie?" www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
Brion McClanahan changed everything for me when it comes to my understanding of the real structure of this country. I'm forever grateful for his work. Check out his podcast - The Brion McClanahan Show.
if any state seemed on the verge of seceding, id head there immediately. of course, imagine the psyops and economic warfare that would follow. thats why it will take a people as steadfast for independence as for breathing air.
I believe that in the United States today in the year 2020., We have never been more divided as a Nation at least not since the Civil War and we might still be even more divided now. We are mainly divided into two groups Liberals and Conservatives. We are at a point now that I have used the analogy that we are in a "Broken Marriage" with irreconcilable differences. Years ago the two sides would tolerate each other but now the Liberals will not tolerate the Conservatives any longer at all. And that Conservatives are not entitled to have opinions and are being "bullied into silence". I believe that Secession is the only answer. How that would look, would be up for ideas and discussion. I have one idea but I do not know if it would work or not and I would certainly be open to looking at others ideas and thoughts.
I was really surprised to see that the Mises Institute recently released an article speaking in a derogatory manner about Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson.
The Constitution is a CONTRACT among the Sovereign States. That implies that the Sovereign States would be able to withdraw from the contract individually or en mass.
Thank you for uploading the videos! The audio/video issues caused me to not be able to listen to the live stream over the weekend. So thanks again for uploading them Mises!
i havent watched it yet but boy am i excited. i have been agitating for secession with every person i meet (and i just got out of an insane asylum so i had lots of "doctors", nurses, and "technicians" to bother) and spread the good word of the austrians. the south will rise again! -murray rothbard
I agree, but there has been a roadblock with the drivers license when we all know it's for commercial drivers, and we who are not commercial drivers, still must get one or go to jail if we should get pulled over. We have written to them asking for them to show the law that says we must have a license when we do not drive commercially and they ignore us. When fighting tickets we put in counterclaims and fight for our rights and they jail us and fine us anyway, causing our insurance rates to rise, etc. The drivers license has been an issue for quite sometime, and it still is.
Both sides had slaves-Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware were on your side. Plus, northern investors, textile mill owners, merchants, and slave traders grew wealthy from slavery as well.
@@tedosmond413 Considering the profits it generated, it’s not surprising that slavery persisted despite its many drawbacks. Businessmen in New York made significant investments in Southern cotton plantations-probably rice plantations, too. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Southern plantations helped make Wall Street what it is today.
@@Spooky1862 The CSA did not consider slavery as having significant drawbacks. They had slavery. They liked having slavery. They did not want to give up slavery. They wanted to expand slavery.
@@Spooky1862 *chuckle I am a very bad speller. It says it right on the tin: the preamble goes "in order to form a permanent federal government". During the constitutional convention, explicitly allowing for secession was discussed, but was ultimately left out. During the civil war, it was even proposed to add an amendment to the confederate constitution to allow for secession. But that too went nowhere.
@@randyhelzerman I see nothing in the Confederate Constitution that expressly forbids secession. A permanent U.S. federal government continued to exist after the South seceded, after all. It was truncated somewhat, but it still existed. Can you direct me to your source on the Confederate secession debate? I’d be interested in reading that-thanks! P.S. Don’t worry about spelling errors; I’ve noticed that a lot of people who spell perfectly can’t do much of anything else! 🤣🤣🤣
@@Spooky1862 look man, I answered your question. And life is too short to argue with people who don't change their minds when presented with evidence that they are wrong.
@@randyhelzerman You’d be hard-pressed to find any honest constitutional scholar who would agree with you that binding power can come from the preamble, rather than specific parts in the body of, a document. That was how the US Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which, interestingly enough, seems to invalidate the Texas v. White decision, which declared secession illegal. Texas v. White was on shaky constitutional and historical ground to begin with. In any case, the people (that is, the states) have the last word on such matters, regardless of written law. Were that not true, the US would have remained under British control.
well, i cried. so A++, would recommend. i'm coming to auburn sometime soon and look forward to meeting some of you. been austrian since 2008 and life has prevented me from my spiritual pilgrimage from memphis down there lol but i'm fighting the war on the internet (i dont hack but am a cyber terrorist and suicide bomber) :-)
I think the idea of secession has romantic appeal but, today, it would be a bad idea with horrific, unknowable and unintended consequences. In today's world, the "parts" will be exponentially weaker and more vulnerable than the whole. Rather, what is needed is to regain control of our Local, State and Federal Government institutions.
How do you propose we gain control of those institutions? Elections won’t work, with so many incumbents running unopposed and since the two major parties are essentially two wings of the same party. Secession is the only way.
I come back and listen to this at least once a year. Great work, Professor McClanahan!
Brion McClanahan is great! His weekly podcast is great too!
Brion is awesome
Very good.
Thanks for introducing me to Brion McClanahan
From a Brazilian perspective, this lecture was fascinating.To me me, a never seen insight
into Texas history, American history and the troubles of the 19th century.Im also a bit angry by how the mainstream USA media portray southern USA people in general given that these series of lectures are such a contradiction of those stereotypes.Overall Im curious to see how American history will play out from now on.
tengokuro Brazil is a National Republic of separate states, but together they form one nation. Meanwhile the United States never did this to form a single nation, they were always 13 separate Nations that United to form an international federal republic, so that each state was a separate Sovereign Nation into itself. So it's important to remember that there's a difference between International sovereignty and domestic sovereignty for States. The difference between the North and South, was that the north claimed that the states were only domestically Sovereign, while the South cleaned that they were internationally sovereign. That is the entire Crux of the American Civil War.
Poorly.
This needs to be taught in school
I am not familiar with Brion McClanahan, but I was impressed by his talk. Very well done.
Brion is the Boss. No one will step in the ring to debate him. His McClanahan Academy is better than any class I had in college. He has a deep understanding of the constitution and takes you through history from a constitutional perspective. He is document based. He knows the intellectual arguments in academia but sticks to the primary documents. The result is high quality history.
I have all due respect for Brion McClanahan with his PhD and his extensive understanding of the Constitution. I'm just a dumb ass with a BS in Chemistry from Wofford College, but the FACT of law is that the Constitution is GONE, NULL, VOID, NEVER TO COME BACK due to martial law since 75000 troops were called up to INVADE the South. All good Southerners need to wake up.
The first Executive Order (#1) was issued by President Abraham Lincoln, and it brought martial law (military law) into America because of the War Between the States. It has never been repealed and is still in effect.
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule… And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in time of great crisis have, from at least the Civil War, in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency". Congressional Report No. 93-549, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Emergency Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency, page 1, November 19, 1973, pursuant to Senate Res. 9, pub. By the U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Wash D.C.
According to the Supreme Court, "Congress has made little or no distinction between a state of national emergency and a state of war." Brown vs. Bernstein, D.C. pa., 49 F. Supp. 728, 732.
According to the “Law of Nations”, "the most immediate effect of a state of war is that it activates the Law of War itself."
And according to the Law of War, "martial law is obtained during a state of war and in truth and reality, is no law at all."
“While the union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not.” First black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall, delivered in a bicentennial speech at Maui, Hawaii on 6 May 1987.
"The 'original republic', the one for which our forefathers fought face to face, hand to hand, exists only in the minds of academics and fundamentalist patriots. The republic created in 1789 is long gone. It died with the 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil War." Columbia Law Professor George P. Fletcher in the June 23rd, 1997 issue of 'The New Republic', page 14.
The Constitution is suspended (has no effect) during a time of war: "There is no limit to the powers that may be exerted in such cases save those which are found in the laws and usages of war....In such cases the laws of war (no law at all) take the place of the Constitution and the laws of the United States as applied in time of peace" (New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 Wall. 394)
Brion does an incredible podcast chock full of early history
The below quote says it all.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
***** I can see you are not knowledgeable or brazen.
***** "
You are just making shit up, right? Have you no shame or pride to somehow restrain your ignorant readiness to lie?"
www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
***** It was more like the Morrill Tariff the did it.
the keyest word being "security" it was, government, intended for defense purposes.
Outstanding speech!
17:30 success? how is he/they defining success? Is he openly advocating for secession by certain states? regions/ parts of states?
I’ve learned so much from this gentleman. I had to relearn some history.
Brion McClanahan changed everything for me when it comes to my understanding of the real structure of this country. I'm forever grateful for his work. Check out his podcast - The Brion McClanahan Show.
Just remember if you secede the federal paychecks stop.....
Thats a good thing, I don't want their blood money.
The federal taxes stop, too-all of them.
if any state seemed on the verge of seceding, id head there immediately. of course, imagine the psyops and economic warfare that would follow. thats why it will take a people as steadfast for independence as for breathing air.
Clem Cornpone "There is no power on earth to dissolve the union but the constitution itself."
Well, you finally agree. Good job. Roflmao.
New guy for the win!
I believe that in the United States today in the year 2020., We have never been more divided as a Nation at least not since the Civil War and we might still be even more divided now. We are mainly divided into two groups Liberals and Conservatives. We are at a point now that I have used the analogy that we are in a "Broken Marriage" with irreconcilable differences. Years ago the two sides would tolerate each other but now the Liberals will not tolerate the Conservatives any longer at all. And that Conservatives are not entitled to have opinions and are being "bullied into silence". I believe that Secession is the only answer. How that would look, would be up for ideas and discussion. I have one idea but I do not know if it would work or not and I would certainly be open to looking at others ideas and thoughts.
I was really surprised to see that the Mises Institute recently released an article speaking in a derogatory manner about Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson.
FREEDOM!!!
The Constitution is a CONTRACT among the Sovereign States. That implies that the Sovereign States would be able to withdraw from the contract individually or en mass.
Unilateral secession is not allowed. Anyone that puts a few minutes thought realize this is true.
Persent your evidence for it?
States seceded from the USSR because of an economic collapse.
Thank you for uploading the videos! The audio/video issues caused me to not be able to listen to the live stream over the weekend. So thanks again for uploading them Mises!
i havent watched it yet but boy am i excited. i have been agitating for secession with every person i meet (and i just got out of an insane asylum so i had lots of "doctors", nurses, and "technicians" to bother) and spread the good word of the austrians. the south will rise again! -murray rothbard
I agree, but there has been a roadblock with the drivers license when we all know it's for commercial drivers, and we who are not commercial drivers, still must get one or go to jail if we should get pulled over. We have written to them asking for them to show the law that says we must have a license when we do not drive commercially and they ignore us. When fighting tickets we put in counterclaims and fight for our rights and they jail us and fine us anyway, causing our insurance rates to rise, etc. The drivers license has been an issue for quite sometime, and it still is.
Just admit it. You had the slaves. You liked having the slaves and didn't want to give up the slaves.
Both sides had slaves-Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware were on your side. Plus, northern investors, textile mill owners, merchants, and slave traders grew wealthy from slavery as well.
@@Spooky1862 Correct. There were some that valued the Republic over slavery and others that valued slavery over the Republic.
@@tedosmond413 Considering the profits it generated, it’s not surprising that slavery persisted despite its many drawbacks. Businessmen in New York made significant investments in Southern cotton plantations-probably rice plantations, too. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Southern plantations helped make Wall Street what it is today.
@@Spooky1862 The CSA did not consider slavery as having significant drawbacks. They had slavery. They liked having slavery. They did not want to give up slavery. They wanted to expand slavery.
#TexIt
Wonder if you think the same when mexican immigrants decide AZ should leave the US.....
If they are illegals, then they have no legal rights in that state.
I hope the people watching this realize it is total bs.
Anyone other than white people there?
If succession is so great, why did the Confederate Constitution explicitly prohibit it??
Don’t you mean “secession?” Where did the Confederate Constitution expressly prohibit secession?
@@Spooky1862 *chuckle I am a very bad speller.
It says it right on the tin: the preamble goes "in order to form a permanent federal government".
During the constitutional convention, explicitly allowing for secession was discussed, but was ultimately left out.
During the civil war, it was even proposed to add an amendment to the confederate constitution to allow for secession. But that too went nowhere.
@@randyhelzerman I see nothing in the Confederate Constitution that expressly forbids secession. A permanent U.S. federal government continued to exist after the South seceded, after all. It was truncated somewhat, but it still existed. Can you direct me to your source on the Confederate secession debate? I’d be interested in reading that-thanks! P.S. Don’t worry about spelling errors; I’ve noticed that a lot of people who spell perfectly can’t do much of anything else! 🤣🤣🤣
@@Spooky1862 look man, I answered your question. And life is too short to argue with people who don't change their minds when presented with evidence that they are wrong.
@@randyhelzerman You’d be hard-pressed to find any honest constitutional scholar who would agree with you that binding power can come from the preamble, rather than specific parts in the body of, a document. That was how the US Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which, interestingly enough, seems to invalidate the Texas v. White decision, which declared secession illegal. Texas v. White was on shaky constitutional and historical ground to begin with. In any case, the people (that is, the states) have the last word on such matters, regardless of written law. Were that not true, the US would have remained under British control.
well, i cried. so A++, would recommend. i'm coming to auburn sometime soon and look forward to meeting some of you. been austrian since 2008 and life has prevented me from my spiritual pilgrimage from memphis down there lol but i'm fighting the war on the internet (i dont hack but am a cyber terrorist and suicide bomber) :-)
I think the idea of secession has romantic appeal but, today, it would be a bad idea with horrific, unknowable and unintended consequences. In today's world, the "parts" will be exponentially weaker and more vulnerable than the whole. Rather, what is needed is to regain control of our Local, State and Federal Government institutions.
How do you propose we gain control of those institutions? Elections won’t work, with so many incumbents running unopposed and since the two major parties are essentially two wings of the same party. Secession is the only way.
I would carry this one critical step further,
Confederation of Sovereign Individuals.
This is the bedrock of liberty.
Lolbertarianism is a fantasy.
Temsas, Larryiousiana, Halabammy, Barkansauce, Shitissippi, we will never forget you. Good bye and good luck with y’all.
The problem here is that a truly Libertarian government would inevitably become the most heavily centralized of all possible forms of political order.
We can do this! Let 1,000 nations bloom!