interviews and conversations of this calibre are greatly appreciated. Both David Rubenstein and Jon Meacham are doing their bit to keep the American story alive and well. And pointing us towards that possibility (& our responsibility) of "a more perfect union". Thanks for posting this video. Thanks to David Rubenstein and Jon Meacham for an outstanding interview.
I will never get tired of listening to Jon Meacham. In interviews like this, delivering a sermon from the National Cathedral, or on a news network, he is always mesmerizing. His understanding of history is a national treasure.
Thank you both for the interview. Lincoln’s qualities as a great leader should have been brought out. People love to hear how he handled crisis, how he handled foes and friends.
THANK YOU VERY "MUCH" FOR THIS CAPTIVATING "CONVERSA- TION😮" ON THE NEW BOOK BY JOHN MEACHAM😊/ ABOUT THE GREAT/ *ABOLISH- MENT OF SLAVERY*/ AMERICAN PRESIDENT❤/ ABRAHAM LINCOLN/ OF THE "AMERICAN NATION"😮.
Two other recent book on the subject of US democracy and the tension between democracy/oligarchy (pré and post civil war) are "Civil War by Other Means" by Jeremi Suri & "How the South won the Civil War"..
In Software Engineering we number the first bit as A0 or A Zero, not A One. In many ways the American Civil War or war between the states was World War Zero or the precursor to the 20th Century war between the states of Europe. These wars actually represented the emergence of true political democratic states. The states of Europe had emerged from European monarchies. 600,00 American Civil War dead was the equivalent of 6 million dead today by proportion, for a country with 31 million in 1865 vs 330 million today. Slavery had been part of the ancient biblical world and took root in the Western Hemisphere. The danger also was 3.5 million slaves and 5.5 million whites in the southern population which was mostly poor. Lincoln understood the world historical significance of the events.
I have heard that the Union Army raised by Lincoln (and his financial / industrial backers) was; at the time, the largest army that had ever been assembled in the history of humanity.
Interestingly, the descendants of those 3.5 million slaves and 5.5 million poor whites largely remain poor today. So, it begs the question ... for what purpose was the War Between the States actually waged?
14:58 Perhaps, the reason that the Southern states (especially those who produced cotton) turned down the North's offer of the Corwin Amendment (which would have made chattel slavery legal in perpetuity in those jurisdictions where it existed) was because the war really wasn't about slavery at all; but rather, the issue of tariffs on cotton (which Lincoln also said in his campaign speeches that he would collect by force if necessary). Reinforcing the troops at a coastal embattlement strategically positioned to control shipping was merely making good on his campaign promise. And if the war was truly over slavery, then why did Virginia not secede until Lincoln demanded that they raise troops to invade states they considered to be their neighbors?
Your Lost Cause rhetoric won't fly. The South's entire economic output, mostly consisting of agriculture, was wholly dependent on chattel slave labor. Secession was undeniably tied to economic factors, but "many layers down, in its abyssal depths" (Bruce Catton), slavery, as the chief provider of Southern labor, was causal to the Civil War, because destroying the Southern economy as a means of defeating the Confederacy could only be accomplished through the destruction of slavery. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
@@frisco21 What lost cause? I mentioned no cause. I’ll concede that slavery was a factor. However, the bulk of the population in the South did NOT own humans as slaves and there were citizens in the North who DID own humans as slaves. My point is that it was not the major factor which led to the outbreak of war. If Lincoln had said to the Northern populace that they were going to war with the Southern states to liberate the slave population of the South, he would have faced even greater opposition to the war in the North than what he did (which required him to suspend the Constitution in the Northern states by silencing free speech in hundreds of publications and suspending Habeas corpus and arresting 15,000 Northern citizens). As with all wars, the War Between the States (which was not actually a Civil War) was waged by the wealthy and the powerful for their own reasons over … well … wealth and power.
@@markteague8889 ...I was responding to your post in which you wrote: _"...the war really wasn't about slavery at all."_ This is the same shopworn, discredited claim made by contemporary pro-Confederate apologists, and it is factually and historically incorrect. If you want to argue that abolishing slavery on purely moral grounds was not Lincoln's chief aim in his conduct of the war, I might, up to a point, agree. Whatever Lincoln's views regarding slavery were (historians still debate this question), during the war his opposition to slavery was motivated primarily by military considerations, not moral ones. Slavery sustained the Confederate economy, and therefore slavery had to be destroyed as a means of defeating the Confederacy. So it is erroneous to claim that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War when, in fact, slavery was profoundly implicated in virtually every aspect of that conflict.
@@frisco21 My contention is that; irrespective of the morale and ethical attitudes of the citizenry both North and South, the war broke out, was fought, and settled over the Benjamin’s. It was all about the Benjamin’s to the power brokers who held the political power and influence to wage war on both sides of the Mason-Dixon. Painting the North to have been on a morale crusade to end slavery is just as disingenuous as painting the South to have been on one to preserve it.
@@markteague8889 ...In my posts, I have clearly outlined the economic aspect of the conflict between Northern and Southern interests. As in every conflict, money lies at its root (as you correctly observed). But what you seem loathe to acknowledge is that money was also at the root of the South's need to maintain and expand slavery, inasmuch as slavery was critical to keeping the Southern economy functional. Without slavery, the Confederacy could not survive as a viable economic entity, and for this reason the North targeted slaves as "contraband of war." Getting rid of slavery was the key to the North's ultimate victory. Under the rules of war in place at the time, this was a perfectly legitimate use of war powers. And, in the case of slavery, the aims of the Northern war effort were in perfect comportment with the goals of the Abolitionists, who were determined to destroy slavery on moral grounds. So it was a win-win combination for the North, and a death knell for the South. Again, I repeat: it is factually and historically inaccurate to say _"...the war really wasn't about slavery at all."_ So, if you wish to continue the conversation, you must acknowledge that your premise was fundamentally wrong. In teaching debate, I instruct my students to face their errors, adjust their arguments accordingly, and move on.
50:02 Re: "the lash and the sword" and the measure-for-measure quote. I agree Lincoln is making a metaphysical suggestion about justice. I don't know why Mr. Meacham immediately reaches for a personal god who is "interested in the unfolding drama" to be the agent of this justice. Can't it be an impersonal karma?
Wasn`t Lincoln quoted, as saying, "Whatever you are, be a good one. " Wouldn`t that give a hint to his open-mindedness, empathy & good will toward the poor, & aggreaved, & to, even those, with a genderless interest in sexuality ?
The question was if the North had won quickly would he have issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Not what would he have done if he let the South secede
@@lindahoganson8721 Thank you for the correction I meant secede. Voice text didn't misheard me and I should have proofread before sending. Peace and blessings.
JW Booth religious pov reminder: "this country was formed for the white not for the black man,” and that slavery was “one of the greatest blessings that God ever bestowed upon a favored nation.”
That's not true that Abraham didn't want to touch southern states with slavery. He was freeing slaves in those states around the emancipation proclamation
Kaleb Velox 13 days ago “How many anti slavery baptists do you know?” “If English is good enough for our lord Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for Texas.” no it is too arcane
49:33 I would suggest that Mr. Meachum return to the pews of the Southern Baptist Church he excoriated as having been completely racist (during the 19th Century) at the outset of this talk to study more closely the precepts of the New Testament that: 1) two wrongs do NOT make a right, and 2) adhering to Old Testament principles such as an "eye for an eye" only leads to a world filled with blind people.
@@pisceanbeauty2503 To categorically imply that all people of the white Southern population were racist and supported slavery before, during and after the war is just as disingenuous and unethical as to apply any other stereotype to an entire group of “individuals” wholesale. In reality, there were probably just as many citizens of the Southern states during the Antebellum period who neither owned human beings as slaves (nor supported slavery) as there were among the Northern citizenry. However, they unfortunately did NOT have the wealth, influence or political power to do much about it. The war was waged by powerful financial and economic interests (in the North) who wished to use the profits from the lucrative cotton production that was the main cash crop in the South to fuel the construction of railroads and industry in the North. Of course, after the war an entirely different form of “wage” slavery took root in the North (and the West) leading to quite violent episodes of labor rebellion in the form of protests and strikes. The Homestead Strike, Ludlow Massacre and Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire are just a few examples. To the victor go the spoils (and the history books). I just wish a Tennessean wouldn’t parrot the pro-war propaganda that was used extensively to disempower and impoverish an entire section of the country during the Reconstruction Period.
So categorical implication is vile, but categorical assertion, of the type you make 're the north, is fine? How dare you imply the south was bad, let me tell you how evil the northern money men were .. Wow, just wow!
The best way to use the cotton profits was not tariffs, or the destruction of those slavery generated profits, but to own the farms & support slavery, which surely plenty of rich northerns did; so your sweeping generalised categorical assertion makes little sense; do you see how pedantic word analysis leads to polarised nonsense?
21:37 Mr. Meachum's ad hominem attacks against Mr. Rubenstein are subtle. With each of Mr. Rubenstein's stronger points, he deploys them almost systematically. He attempts to fly them under the radar, utilizing Mr. Rubenstein's wealth against him; and thereby, indirectly associating Mr. Rubenstein with the wealthy slave owning class of the Antebellum South. But, anyone enjoying this discussion/debate should not mistake them for anything other than what they are, efforts to distract the audience from the substance of the arguments.
You assert that this is an argument, that Meacham tries to undermine Rubinstein in a snarky way; really? I think you're polluting this with your political assertions. Meacham is there to talk about his book; does he take some shots at R? Sure. It seems like good natured banter, but you declare it has some evil intent that we all must be warned not to miss. Wtf are you up to?
Ad hominem attacks, again, really? Surprised you didn't say micro aggressions. At best you're attention seeking hyperbolic, at worst a political terrorist, declaring evil intent and danger in every word; it's bloody tiresome, almost Trumpish.
We have forgotten the 11th Commandment which instructs "A Master & Downtrodden" to take on a 6 years contract (read it and hear it as there are ~613 Instructions SPOKEN not just ten) but the Master must treat the slave like the children of the Master's household. of which many state to this day their Master helped them achieve what could not be obtained otherwise. Today we call it Employer/Employee relations yet no Glory to God is given. This is the answer to homelessness i submit. In Y'shua
interviews and conversations of this calibre are greatly appreciated. Both David Rubenstein and Jon Meacham are doing their bit to keep the American story alive and well. And pointing us towards that possibility (& our responsibility) of "a more perfect union". Thanks for posting this video. Thanks to David Rubenstein and Jon Meacham for an outstanding interview.
I will never get tired of listening to Jon Meacham. In interviews like this, delivering a sermon from the National Cathedral, or on a news network, he is always mesmerizing. His understanding of history is a national treasure.
Ever! Well said. A living treasure of wisdom and perspective
A historian with a sense of humor. Wonderful. Thank you for the interview. Lovely rich voice. Appreciate his self-effacing manner and humility. ❤
I learn so much every time I get to hear Jon Meacham! Thank you!
Thank you both for the interview. Lincoln’s qualities as a great leader should have been brought out. People love to hear how he handled crisis, how he handled foes and friends.
A splendidly brilliant conversation!
I love this book. I think it is so timely and relevant with the time we are living.
THANK YOU
VERY "MUCH"
FOR THIS CAPTIVATING "CONVERSA-
TION😮"
ON THE NEW BOOK BY JOHN MEACHAM😊/
ABOUT
THE GREAT/
*ABOLISH-
MENT OF SLAVERY*/ AMERICAN PRESIDENT❤/
ABRAHAM LINCOLN/
OF THE "AMERICAN NATION"😮.
Great talk
Fantastic!
7:46 speaker of the house Mike Johnson (April 2024 ) should listen to this lecture from Meacham!
Brilliant
The heart is what God is going to weigh.Let us pray for one another. ❤🎉❤🎉
The Coldest Winter. Finished it! Truman leaned on Lincoln's firing of a general when retiring MacArthur.
Two other recent book on the subject of US democracy and the tension between democracy/oligarchy (pré and post civil war) are "Civil War by Other Means" by Jeremi Suri & "How the South won the Civil War"..
What happened to the "better angels" that were supposed to spring from the republican party and bring the Trump administration and the ism down?
Every time Meacham got into a groove, Rubenstein would give him a different question and get him off the track - SO ANNOYING!
In Software Engineering we number the first bit as A0 or A Zero, not A One. In many ways the American Civil War or war between the states was World War Zero or the precursor to the 20th Century war between the states of Europe. These wars actually represented the emergence of true political democratic states. The states of Europe had emerged from European monarchies. 600,00 American Civil War dead was the equivalent of 6 million dead today by proportion, for a country with 31 million in 1865 vs 330 million today. Slavery had been part of the ancient biblical world and took root in the Western Hemisphere. The danger also was 3.5 million slaves and 5.5 million whites in the southern population which was mostly poor. Lincoln understood the world historical significance of the events.
Plus, he could still hang Indians, even if they didn't have the vote in this newly emerged democracy
I have heard that the Union Army raised by Lincoln (and his financial / industrial backers) was; at the time, the largest army that had ever been assembled in the history of humanity.
Interestingly, the descendants of those 3.5 million slaves and 5.5 million poor whites largely remain poor today. So, it begs the question ... for what purpose was the War Between the States actually waged?
14:58 Perhaps, the reason that the Southern states (especially those who produced cotton) turned down the North's offer of the Corwin Amendment (which would have made chattel slavery legal in perpetuity in those jurisdictions where it existed) was because the war really wasn't about slavery at all; but rather, the issue of tariffs on cotton (which Lincoln also said in his campaign speeches that he would collect by force if necessary). Reinforcing the troops at a coastal embattlement strategically positioned to control shipping was merely making good on his campaign promise. And if the war was truly over slavery, then why did Virginia not secede until Lincoln demanded that they raise troops to invade states they considered to be their neighbors?
Your Lost Cause rhetoric won't fly. The South's entire economic output, mostly consisting of agriculture, was wholly dependent on chattel slave labor. Secession was undeniably tied to economic factors, but "many layers down, in its abyssal depths" (Bruce Catton), slavery, as the chief provider of Southern labor, was causal to the Civil War, because destroying the Southern economy as a means of defeating the Confederacy could only be accomplished through the destruction of slavery. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
@@frisco21 What lost cause? I mentioned no cause. I’ll concede that slavery was a factor. However, the bulk of the population in the South did NOT own humans as slaves and there were citizens in the North who DID own humans as slaves. My point is that it was not the major factor which led to the outbreak of war. If Lincoln had said to the Northern populace that they were going to war with the Southern states to liberate the slave population of the South, he would have faced even greater opposition to the war in the North than what he did (which required him to suspend the Constitution in the Northern states by silencing free speech in hundreds of publications and suspending Habeas corpus and arresting 15,000 Northern citizens). As with all wars, the War Between the States (which was not actually a Civil War) was waged by the wealthy and the powerful for their own reasons over … well … wealth and power.
@@markteague8889 ...I was responding to your post in which you wrote: _"...the war really wasn't about slavery at all."_ This is the same shopworn, discredited claim made by contemporary pro-Confederate apologists, and it is factually and historically incorrect. If you want to argue that abolishing slavery on purely moral grounds was not Lincoln's chief aim in his conduct of the war, I might, up to a point, agree. Whatever Lincoln's views regarding slavery were (historians still debate this question), during the war his opposition to slavery was motivated primarily by military considerations, not moral ones. Slavery sustained the Confederate economy, and therefore slavery had to be destroyed as a means of defeating the Confederacy. So it is erroneous to claim that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War when, in fact, slavery was profoundly implicated in virtually every aspect of that conflict.
@@frisco21 My contention is that; irrespective of the morale and ethical attitudes of the citizenry both North and South, the war broke out, was fought, and settled over the Benjamin’s. It was all about the Benjamin’s to the power brokers who held the political power and influence to wage war on both sides of the Mason-Dixon. Painting the North to have been on a morale crusade to end slavery is just as disingenuous as painting the South to have been on one to preserve it.
@@markteague8889 ...In my posts, I have clearly outlined the economic aspect of the conflict between Northern and Southern interests. As in every conflict, money lies at its root (as you correctly observed). But what you seem loathe to acknowledge is that money was also at the root of the South's need to maintain and expand slavery, inasmuch as slavery was critical to keeping the Southern economy functional. Without slavery, the Confederacy could not survive as a viable economic entity, and for this reason the North targeted slaves as "contraband of war." Getting rid of slavery was the key to the North's ultimate victory. Under the rules of war in place at the time, this was a perfectly legitimate use of war powers. And, in the case of slavery, the aims of the Northern war effort were in perfect comportment with the goals of the Abolitionists, who were determined to destroy slavery on moral grounds. So it was a win-win combination for the North, and a death knell for the South. Again, I repeat: it is factually and historically inaccurate to say _"...the war really wasn't about slavery at all."_ So, if you wish to continue the conversation, you must acknowledge that your premise was fundamentally wrong. In teaching debate, I instruct my students to face their errors, adjust their arguments accordingly, and move on.
50:02 Re: "the lash and the sword" and the measure-for-measure quote. I agree Lincoln is making a metaphysical suggestion about justice. I don't know why Mr. Meacham immediately reaches for a personal god who is "interested in the unfolding drama" to be the agent of this justice. Can't it be an impersonal karma?
Wasn`t Lincoln quoted, as saying, "Whatever you are, be a good one. "
Wouldn`t that give a hint to his open-mindedness, empathy & good will
toward the poor, & aggreaved, & to, even those, with a genderless interest
in sexuality ?
He does 'stand - up' sitting down.
Anyone please let me know your favorite book on the relationship between Lincoln and Douglass?
How why he did what he did. Yes, but aren't we happy he lived when he did and did do what he did.
...what's a black corridor
The question was if the North had won quickly would he have issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Not what would he have done if he let the South secede
Let the South succeed or secede ?
@@lindahoganson8721 Thank you for the correction I meant secede. Voice text didn't misheard me and I should have proofread before sending. Peace and blessings.
JW Booth religious pov reminder: "this country was formed for the white not for the black man,” and that slavery was “one of the greatest blessings that God ever bestowed upon a favored nation.”
That's not true that Abraham didn't want to touch southern states with slavery. He was freeing slaves in those states around the emancipation proclamation
“How many anti slavery baptists do you know?”
“If English is good enough for our lord Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for Texas.”
LoL
Kaleb Velox
13 days ago
“How many anti slavery baptists do you know?”
“If English is good enough for our lord Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for Texas.” no it is too arcane
49:33 I would suggest that Mr. Meachum return to the pews of the Southern Baptist Church he excoriated as having been completely racist (during the 19th Century) at the outset of this talk to study more closely the precepts of the New Testament that: 1) two wrongs do NOT make a right, and 2) adhering to Old Testament principles such as an "eye for an eye" only leads to a world filled with blind people.
Let’s weep because Meacham called the white Baptist church of the 19th century racist. 🙄
@@pisceanbeauty2503 To categorically imply that all people of the white Southern population were racist and supported slavery before, during and after the war is just as disingenuous and unethical as to apply any other stereotype to an entire group of “individuals” wholesale. In reality, there were probably just as many citizens of the Southern states during the Antebellum period who neither owned human beings as slaves (nor supported slavery) as there were among the Northern citizenry. However, they unfortunately did NOT have the wealth, influence or political power to do much about it. The war was waged by powerful financial and economic interests (in the North) who wished to use the profits from the lucrative cotton production that was the main cash crop in the South to fuel the construction of railroads and industry in the North. Of course, after the war an entirely different form of “wage” slavery took root in the North (and the West) leading to quite violent episodes of labor rebellion in the form of protests and strikes. The Homestead Strike, Ludlow Massacre and Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire are just a few examples. To the victor go the spoils (and the history books). I just wish a Tennessean wouldn’t parrot the pro-war propaganda that was used extensively to disempower and impoverish an entire section of the country during the Reconstruction Period.
So categorical implication is vile, but categorical assertion, of the type you make 're the north, is fine?
How dare you imply the south was bad, let me tell you how evil the northern money men were ..
Wow, just wow!
The best way to use the cotton profits was not tariffs, or the destruction of those slavery generated profits, but to own the farms & support slavery, which surely plenty of rich northerns did; so your sweeping generalised categorical assertion makes little sense; do you see how pedantic word analysis leads to polarised nonsense?
21:37 Mr. Meachum's ad hominem attacks against Mr. Rubenstein are subtle. With each of Mr. Rubenstein's stronger points, he deploys them almost systematically. He attempts to fly them under the radar, utilizing Mr. Rubenstein's wealth against him; and thereby, indirectly associating Mr. Rubenstein with the wealthy slave owning class of the Antebellum South. But, anyone enjoying this discussion/debate should not mistake them for anything other than what they are, efforts to distract the audience from the substance of the arguments.
I bet you see all kinds of things in clouds, right?
You assert that this is an argument, that Meacham tries to undermine Rubinstein in a snarky way; really?
I think you're polluting this with your political assertions.
Meacham is there to talk about his book; does he take some shots at R? Sure.
It seems like good natured banter, but you declare it has some evil intent that we all must be warned not to miss.
Wtf are you up to?
Ad hominem attacks, again, really? Surprised you didn't say micro aggressions.
At best you're attention seeking hyperbolic, at worst a political terrorist, declaring evil intent and danger in every word; it's bloody tiresome, almost Trumpish.
We have forgotten the 11th Commandment which instructs "A Master & Downtrodden" to take on a 6 years contract (read it and hear it as there are ~613 Instructions SPOKEN not just ten) but the Master must treat the slave like the children of the Master's household. of which many state to this day their Master helped them achieve what could not be obtained otherwise. Today we call it Employer/Employee relations yet no Glory to God is given. This is the answer to homelessness i submit. In Y'shua
Awesome guy but he's gotta stop saying UMMM so much it's really obnoxious
The
Brasil 100 miyone presiden corte hodebreapropiasion africa
..so,
..what's a black orator...
..
..(same think)...
..is it ..,
..not?
He’s such an awful human.
Who do you mean?