Відео

First off, slavery would never have been reinstated throughout the western hemisphere had not the Union won. Secondly, he argued that the Union victory prevented anarchy when, in reality, the Union effort to win the war, its’ victory, and the aftermath caused the most anarchistic period in American history. There’s a valid argument to say that secession was a victory for democracy. Read the Declaration of Independence, especially “the right to alter, abolish, and institute new government” part.

Corny I know, but I get chills listening to this fellow. At 81 I guess I am allowed to be optimistic.

God, I hope he is correct.

This guy is delusional about his interpretations of the two regions and why there was a war.

"some settler expansion"--literally the genocide of the American Indian from the Mississippi river to the Pacific Ocean, but sure, okay

The party of Lincoln today is unrecognizable with regard to Lincoln's theory of a democratic republic.

What a great speech. I highly recommend Dr. Guelzo's newest book on American faith, too. Guelzo is an American treasure. Most and truly.

I question that the USA ditched English Common Law and Statute Law after the War of Independence. I understand that you have Habeas Corpus. If you have then it must be based on the 1679 Act of Parliament.

If the question of slave states seceding from a union bent on outlawing long coddled slavery (which had enriched both sides handsomely for decades if not hundreds of years) was considered in the supreme court how would it have been resolved? Slavery, though an odious institution was very much legal at the time. Unconstitutional taking of property rights would result from emancipation legislation. Damages would have been stupendous. The court would likely have had to strike down emancipation. That is why Lincoln stoked the flame of secession and ultimately civil war itself. Through war - he could accomplish emancipation. It was simply a legal work-around/maneuver. There was no other way to abolish slavery and make it stick in the courts?

Excellent presentation. Thank you.

Loved this presentation..genius!

The war was about whether we would have hamburgers or pizza, every one knows that.

Slavery.

I’m sure the indigenous people that were slaughtered or purposely sickened by the United States, would not consider the 100 years between 1800 to 1900, boring…with or without a civil war. The statement from this history professor that it would have been a boring century without the American civil probably needs to return to the classroom…as a student.

And then there was Lincoln's role in the Matson slave trial.

Yeah, Rhode Island and Massachusetts had profited enormously not only from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, but also from doing business with the Caribbean slave industries.

Then the Union "liberated" the Indians.

The American Civil War was a Democrat insurrection in pursuit of more political power, based, in part, on slavery.

Guelzo for President.

This man is an excellent speaker!

Professor Smith is an ageless wonder! i have listened to his Yale intro to political philosophy a dozen of times. The man is a brilliant mind at work with a unique and disarming ability of articulation. His striking question to his class still rings very much in my ears: 'If Plato is a fascist, what does it make you?'

The civil war disproved and reversed what the revolutionary war proved. That a right of sovereignty exists when two disparate factions no longer afford economic and political harmony. When an issue of the magnitude of unconstitutional taking of property on that scale exists - the fall out will persist for hundreds of years. There was little or no silver lining. Beyond a hungry freedom - slaves received nothing for their lifetimes of toils which developed the textile industry and industrial revolution in the US and Britain. Freed slaves should have received their own sovereign land hold - a sub-nation carved out from 2-4 border states on both sides of the Mason Dixon line. However, Lincoln and the abolitionists did not and could not get the votes to back that up. Instead, we have an assassinated president and our inner cities as they are today. This is an economic, political, and social travesty. Where is the real academic study and analysis of the real economics here?

A minority portion of its people?

@user-gf3lw5pi4t -- Mankind *must* be governed. History proves this ... The biggest issue with the governess is who is doing the governing?

What Mr. Guelzo is showing with his words on history is the *utter and absolute stupidity* of the human species.

I agree with the idea that it proved that Republican government does not necessary end in anarchy, however the point that slavery would have been "re-instated" ignores the economic realities of the institution. Slavery had no chance in a head-to-head contest with Capitalism; every culture that started embracing Capitalism benefited from the Industrial Revolution, and all began to recognized and institutionalize trade for mutual benefit within their laws. Slavery is antithetical to the trader principle and the concept of individual rights that Capitalism requires. It's more likely that the failure of the Union to destroy slavery would have pushed the conflict further into the future, when technology would have made the inevitable war even more bloody...

That was amazing!

Allen is an incredible speaker!!! I could listen to him lecture all day long and he certainly knows his civil war facts

Democracies protect themselves against internal instability? Double speak that actually inspires tyrants everywhere

Wait, is that Dr Frazier Winslow Crane?

Outstanding orator, ty, big up By the way, Lincoln had a "walk in spirit" from fourth density (it happens occasionally) who lived out the rest of Lincoln's life and carried forth his mission, which he felt too weak to carry out, starting I believe in 1852. And there's a reference to this in Big Bang Theory where Sheldon says, "Can you imagine how history would have turned out if robots from the future (negative extraterrestrials) became involved in the civil war?" Quite a seemingly strange statement; now you know what it means. It's true. Read The Ra Material.

The US Cuvil War was about slavery & white supremacy exactly as spelled out in the third article if Constitution Of The Confederate States If America & echoed in every single Confederate state constitution

Excellent video. However, what is happening today our politicians are destroying our democracy based on being free and a lawful society based on the constitution and declaration of independence. So what does the professor have to say about this administration opening our borders to those who could care less about our Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Not to mention those coming across the border are terrorist. So maybe that is why we are a republic.

"democratic government would have been shown to be incapable of avoiding anarchy when a minority portion of its people decided they no longer wished to abide by its political direction and claimed a popular sovereign right to withdraw." ---as happened in the Revolution; as detailed as a right of man in the Declaration. You putz.

Professor Guelzo is my favorite American historian and interpreter. This 1 hour lecture explains what happened in 1861 when economics and regional differences clashed with philosophy and practical governance. I love Lincoln and i hate war and what a horrible job he was selected to do for the America he believed in. We should never forget the American Civil War and what it proves about preserving democracy.

1:06:21 [democracy] “is not some fragile flower…it has strength that is drawn from the natural order of things…”

1:05:45 “…in a democracy you expect crisis…”

EASY MONEY BASED ON SLAVERY

If America wants to improve its democracy they should have an Electoral Commission as well as compulsory and preferential voting.

A tea tax was much more preferable than Sherman and carpetbaggers. No Southern state would have joined the Union if they had thought they couldn't withdraw should they desire. A) Paying a little more for tea. B) Being killed, your children being killed, your lands being stolen and never returned. Hmmmm. Who the f____ would ever have chosen B. ??

Biassed in favor of Lincoln's narrative.

How about Lincoln legalized the vote for women and slaves when he took office? No War. Let the states vote out enslaving men or protect a man's right to leave a slaver and call himself free. No War. War was for those who get rich off war. Write that.

31 minutes He quotes lawyers writing in Northern newspapers. Yesterday's fake news is today's history. 25 minutes Lincoln's mandate- 2 Democrats ran against him, RIGging it for Lincoln. Duh. Like elections are of the people, for the people, but never by the people. 19 minutes MEAT. Meet the 35 Trusts that control 80% of capital/wealth by 1905. This was only the latest incarnation of the gold/cannon ball gang. They were there forty years earlier. Maybe they didn't realize how successful the depop event would go, but they already had a winning formula. Nine minutes in: He lost me when he called Jackson a sociopath. He did it on purpose to lose me, or at least confirm his bias if not get a tainted fore taste of the assembly of his scholarship. He could have skipped the intro.

I’m really enjoying this, but the title is wrong, it should be something like, “Civil War and the transformation of the United States”. I thought he’d get into the reasons why the war was fought.

Money!

As always, money. The world wanted tobacco, cotton, sugar and furs

" It was like wow," Donld Trump on the Cival War

Expansion of slavery. Saved you an hour

Mr. Guelzo: Thank you so much, important information to keep in our minds today. History is important throughout the truth of the facts and the sadness and consequences of the human suffering. God bless all of you for such a wonderful and professional knowledge .

I don't even have to watch it, you just have to look at the outcome. Before the war slaves, after the war no slaves. The south did not lose territory, National repersation, nothing but the right to own slaves.