What was the American Civil War Really About? with Allen Guelzo

The American Civil War brought catastrophic costs to our nation and wrought serious internal changes. In addition to the staggering loss of life, the war erased billions of dollars of wealth and disrupted conventional patterns of life. However, these descriptions miss the most fundamental significance of the war - that it preserved the nation so that democracies could defend themselves against internal instability. Had the American Union failed to triumph in the war, not only would slavery have been re-instated as a labor system throughout the Western hemisphere, but 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.
Subscribe to our channel!
Sign up for our newsletter: scetl.asu.edu/newsletter
SCETL Info:
Email: [e-mail]
Facebook: / asuscetl
Instagram: / asu_scetl
Twitter: / asu_scetl
Website: scetl.asu.edu

[@user-oi9iz9jr8y]

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

[@richardmourdock2719]

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

[@vincemarshall9520]

This man is an excellent speaker!

[@ranmanfl5597]

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.

[@jeffmilroy9345]

What does it prove about preserving democracy? Rather it set up unionization and loss of the countries industrial base and thus the very source of its existence.

[@jacobmasters438]

Is traditional "Liberal Democracy" at stake? I say it has ALWAYS been at stake. Abraham Lincoln understood it was passion that drove the Southern states into armed rebellion. Signifying that certitude has a tendency to lead to violence. Plain and simple, war is awful.

[@jeffmilroy9345]

@@jacobmasters438 War was necessary in 1861. Unconstitutional property seizure of enormous scale threatened with Lincoln's election.

[@ranmanfl5597]

The historic timeline shows that the first secession was declared after the election of Abraham Lincoln and many more followed. Then the violent attack on Fort Sumter. In other words someone's favored candidate for President didn't win so they started an insurrection. Sounds like January 6th of 2020. So i agree with you JM our liberal democracy always has quitters who can't stick to the rules when they feel threatened and don't get their way. Nothing has changed, we are not evolving as a group, and our democratic way of life is always threatened by self-absorbed malignant bad actors. Welcome to our unstable reality.

[@ranmanfl5597]

@@jacobmasters438 The historic timeline shows that the first secession was declared after the election of Abraham Lincoln and many more southern states followed. Then the violent attack on Fort Sumter. In other words someone's favored candidate for President didn't win so they started an insurrection. Sounds like January 6th of 2020. So i agree with you JM our liberal democracy always has quitters who can't stick to the rules when they feel threatened and don't get their way. Nothing has changed, we are not evolving as a group, and our democratic way of life is always threatened by self-absorbed malignant bad actors. Welcome to our unstable reality.

[@swarner9546]

Loved this presentation..genius!

[@A_friend_of_Aristotle]

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...

[@KeithWilliamMacHendry]

Then our famous Scot & the father of modern economics Adam Smith resolutely was opposed to slavery. Of course, we are talking of a different era in humanity.

[@sterlingferguson1704]

Thanks. I learned a lot from this lecture.

[@kennethobrien8386]

Excellent presentation. Thank you.

[@marchess286]

Thank you

[@davidgoetz2576]

That was amazing!

[@grayalex73]

Excellent lecture but could do without all the ads!!!

[@FedExMan822]

KZbin premium is worth the money. Highly recommend. No ads.

[@markschroeder5372]

This is a great 🎉video

[@brentinnes5151]

Brilliant and with passion..he is an authentic historian

[@benjaminpendleton7797]

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.

[@josephfreedman9422]

I have heard Professor Guelzo in other talks, and he usually has something valuable to say. He also has a beautiful speaking voice and rhythm.

[@takeoverusa]

Allen Guelzo, God bless you and your love ones. You’ve mastered the art of revisiting American history with a voice and insightfulness that I can listen to for days n nites at a time. You’re an awesome human being. Take care. Sincerely yours, Joseph L.

[@raymondswenson1268]

Professor Guelzo's courses for The Great Courses are very entertaining and informative.

[@CrabbyE8]

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.

[@davidolson8537]

Interesting and important. But Why is he making me remember “Thurston Howell”?

[@michaelharrington7656]

An outstanding lecture and Q @ A Session. I will seek out the works of Prof Guelzo.

[@chrislubs1341]

A political philosopher, his narrative approaches a sung sermonized story-telling, which formulates his assignment of virtue judging the War history within a context of supporting his world view of a natural morality, irrespective of obvious doubts whether reality conforms to his affirmation of US exceptionalism.

[@billiewinton5906]

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

[@BikerDude-dx8jh]

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.

[@jeffmorin5867]

Proof that you know nothing...

[@10Bones01]

Guelzo for President.

[@user-gf3lw5pi4t]

And that government of the corporation , by the corporation , for the corporation , Shall not perish from the earth 😢

[@harleylawdude]

Corporate power is horizontal. Political power is vertical.

[@user-gf3lw5pi4t]

@@harleylawdude ??

[@icebirdz]

Vote. for Trump...the only non-war president

[@user-gf3lw5pi4t]

@@icebirdz Kennedy 2024❤️❤️❤️

[@ryandalion8379]

Trump is the worst candidate ever.

[@jamespierce523]

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.

[@benjaminpendleton7797]

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

[@FoundingFathersUSA]

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

[@dougdellwo3274]

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

[@dwainseppala4469]

Wait, is that Dr Frazier Winslow Crane?

[@FoundingFathersUSA]

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

[@Matchboxsign39]

Brilliant. I need to watch this again. Thanks for sharing.

[@TheGazaMethodChannel]

The democratic foundation concept “Consent of the governed” comes from “made in the image of God”. Deny the latter and lose the prior.

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

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.

[@anavictoriawackerla3327]

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 .

[@Scott-A-Montgomery]

The trial against Jefferson Davis didn’t affirm this idea of succession as Lincoln saw that point of view

[@jeffmilroy9345]

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?

[@davidpotter3569]

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.

[@user-rq7el8nh6q]

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

[@fredcdobbs.goldmine]

"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.

[@dwainseppala4469]

If you want to bring our government down without firing a shot, JUST STOP PAYING TAXES.

[@craigyoung9199]

Brilliantly presented, bravo sir!

[@christopherholbert1878]

Required viewing for literally EVERY AMERICAN

[@LeePee-yn7bx]

Very interesting, but in describing the American 19th century as otherwise uneventful for some reason you omit the completion of the theft of a continent and a genocide.

[@richardbeck3404]

@LeePee-yn7bx states, "Very interesting, but in describing the American 19th century as otherwise uneventful for some reason you omit the completion of the theft of a continent and a genocide." LeePee-yn, you need to change lenses. The Native Americans' and the US government's conflicts with them are barely a blip on the American history seismic meter. The conflict makes for great storytelling and myth-making. Except for the Civil War, the American 19th century was uneventful. People were obsessed with commerce as de Tocqueville points put. Example, if you had been heading west after the Civil War, you would have been more likely to encounter a Mexican, Native American, or Chinese person than a European. Patricia Limerick in 'The Rendezvous Model of Western American History," stresses the view of the West as the most ethnically diverse part of the country (NYTimes, Bernstein, Unsettling the Old West, 1990). Another example of myth, there were no gangs of outlaws rampaging through small towns. Why? Because everyone was well-skilled with firearms. That's an American tradition that's been carried forward to today. Once the railroad connected east and west, the Indian Wars ended. You lament the destruction of the Indian culture. It wasn't destroyed. There was no genocide. If what happened to the Indians had been a genocide, they would have been erased from our history but instead they were celebrated. The US government did its best to preserve Native American culture with their well intended reservation system. Europeans did what they could to assimilate Native American into mainstream culture including creating Indian Schools. All of this seems horrible because of today's postmodern worldview of colonization, hegemony, and oppression. That's your lens. Considering that Native American cultures never invented the wheel, attempts to assimilate/acculturate them into the mainstream might be considered noble and merciful and...successful.

[@bobtaylor170]

​@@richardbeck3404, it's a delight to read something so trenchant, so overwhelming in its dispatching of the lunacies of the postmodern, Woke Left. Thank you, Richard.

[@LeePee-yn7bx]

​​​​​@richardbeck3404 Genocide doesn't necessitate total erasure, and even if it did my point was just surprise that the Professor relegates completion of it's period to the uneventful category. I obviously don't know your background so can't draw any conclusion, guess another product of the carefully curated subset of history your education system and popular culture provide. "By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 Indigenous people remained, a sharp decline from the estimated 5 million to 15 million living in North America when Columbus arrived in 1492"

[@JPW3]

@@richardbeck3404 "Europeans did what they could to assimilate Native American into mainstream culture including creating Indian Schools." Indian boarding schools have, at best, a checkered, history. At least according to a 2022 report by the U.S. Department of the Interior. As for the lecture, Dr. Guelzo is always worth reading and listening to. Even if you disagree him. An excellent historian.

[@LuciFeric137]

AH stated he used American 19th century genocide as the model for his plans in eastern europe.

[@mattfox2716]

In every single declaration of secession by every single confederate state, within the fist paragraph was slavery…….the war was about slavery. It was the foundation of the economy and the political and cultural hierarchy of that society. That is to say, slavery was the complete foundation of that society. Anyone who says the war wasn’t about slavery is an idiot or ignorant or both.

[@renelorio9912]

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. What you follow with is hollow emotion prejudiced against truth.

[@brianniegemann4788]

The Declaration of Causes for Secession of Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia all stated that northern opposition to slavery was a principal cause of their secession. The Florida [confederate] constitution applied only to " free white men". The Confederate Constitution also protected slavery. I have not reviewed the declarations, secession ordinances, or constitutions of all the Confederate states But all the ones l have seen make some reference to slavery, Lincoln's opposition to its expansion, his supposed designs for its abolition or northern interference with "our institutions" as reasons for secession. It seems pretty clear to me that slavery was a major motive for secession, and that "state's rights" was code for the right to expand slavery to every state in the Union. I have seen plenty of historical evidence to support this conclusion. Thanks for listening.

[@kindnessfirst9670]

Mostly they are just racist. And you are right-most racists are pretty stupid since (by definition) they deny science. Of course so do lots of nonracists.

[@250txc]

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

[@philopolymath]

Money!

[@TM-vq1bf]

Guelzo speaks like an aristocratic British American

[@HoldMyData]

This man is the real life Fraser.

[@brentinnes5151]

but probably a better actor

[@josephwurzer4366]

A great lecturer. Read Lees biography by him.

[@brucesmith6007]

If 51 people want dictate the rights 49 forever then eventually there will be another civil war. The english civil war was a lesson creating checks and balances. Today checks and balances is being challenged.

[@leojablonski2309]

Hey, Hay ...quit yacking and let the guest speak

[@benjaminpendleton7797]

Then the Union "liberated" the Indians.

[@paulmicelli5819]

State's Rights

[@brentinnes5151]

no....without slavery there is no war....everything else is secondary

[@paulmicelli5819]

@@brentinnes5151 Wrong

[@brentinnes5151]

@@paulmicelli5819 so if there is no slavery they fight that war...Wrong

[@paulmicelli5819]

@@brentinnes5151 Wrong

[@brentinnes5151]

so they going to take on union because Union . ...? ?...what, if not to do with slavery???? you will wake up the more you study...you just caught up in lost cause myth like millions of others..with closed mind

[@chrisstein5128]

Democracy is showing its fatal flaws, thank God we’re a Republic we still have some hope from the Fed overreaching.

[@RunOfTheHind]

*democratic republic.

[@williammoran4898]

There is no hope that's the whole problem. They've already over reached where have you been?

[@brentinnes5151]

the professor would disappear if he was in china..so yeah democracy isnt perfect but its best..Churchill said sth similar

[@RunOfTheHind]

@@brentinnes5151 All these Tuckerbros have been sucking up so much russian propaganda, they don't know how good they have it.

[@brentinnes5151]

Unfortunately no...we can see know how these ccp lovin commies are bending/breaking/changing laws...the Fed is controlled now...thats why FBI are spying on christians in church and at school board meetings

[@jeffmilroy9345]

A minority portion of its people?

[@kindnessfirst9670]

That means less than half.

[@jeffmilroy9345]

@@kindnessfirst9670 Then why did the union have so much trouble keeping order? And why have you not paid reparations yet?

[@kindnessfirst9670]

@@jeffmilroy9345 I don't understand what your question has to do with the definition of minority.

[@jeffmilroy9345]

@@kindnessfirst9670 okay I will play along - you did not define 50 percent of we what population set. Neither did the professor.

[@marckg6950]

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

[@Braylon18]

Look up people like Dr. Brion McClanahan. I wouldn't waste much time w/ Guelzo.

[@brentinnes5151]

you mean on ccp tiktok or far left pinko antisemite google

[@brentinnes5151]

this guy is brilliant you must have gone to beijing university

[@user-uo9oc5wz3v]

So you're free to join the Union, but not free to leave. Sounds like Hotel California. This guy loves to praise Lincoln for his morality, I noticed he didn't bring up the Corwin amendment.

[@singlespeedcrossbike]

Apparently joining the union was akin to made man in the Mafia. Once you’ve in there ain’t no leaving. Thats always been a problem for me with this conflict.

[@BBBoggs]

Your state joined willingly when you knew there was no escape clause. Deal with it

[@user-uo9oc5wz3v]

@@BBBoggs NOT true, there is no such thing as a no escape clause. The Contitution doesn't mention the subject at all, therefore the power resides with the state. The states never delegated to the federal government any power to suppress secession. Therefore, secession remained a reserved right of the states. This is why President James Buchanan, Lincoln's predecessor allowed the first seven Southern states to leave in peace. Free to join, free to leave was a common belief in both the North and South at the time. Lincoln would do anything to keep the Union together. Please read your Constitution and some real history books like "The Real Lincoln".

[@user-ok1el9mg4h]

Slavery. Just read the Declarations of Independence of the various Southern States, eg Mississippi. They say it explicitly: Slavery. That was it.

[@Rio_Seco]

That's cute. How many states mentioned slavery? Did they mention anything else? How many states didn't mention slavery? When and why did those states leave?

[@user-ok1el9mg4h]

@@Rio_Seco roughly 2/3. And for the others, the parliamentary materials are also rather explicit that slavery was the clearly dominating motive. And read the Constiution of the CS, Art. 1, sec. 9, 4.

[@Rio_Seco]

@@user-ok1el9mg4h You are incorrect. Not even half the states mentioned slavery. The majority were conditional Unionits who left only after the union started to raise an army making it clear that they would not allow the initial departures. Of those that did mention slavery a host of other long simmering issues boiled over and were also directly mentioned. It's correct to say that slavery was an issue, it's not accurate to say that slavery was the issue.

[@user-ok1el9mg4h]

How cute! The "noble" cause. Have you read the Cornerstone speech of Alexander Stephens from 1861, VP of the Confederacy? Is is there explicitly: slavery, pure and simple. It was a war about money, in this case about an economic system using chattel slavery as basis. The explicit protection in the constitution is also clear evidence.

[@HaleysComet81]

​@@user-ok1el9mg4hthese people are morons.

[@raymoose8568]

The reason that you have to continually give lectures on the causes of the civil war is because you do not want to hear the grievances that plagued the south. The main reason behind this DENIAL is the slavery issue. That cancels any other reason with good reason. Just study how the South was taxed by the feds. The very reason that American pushed the British out. When the South succeeded they opened all of their ports to free trade. That is all it took for the North to invade. Study the tariff increases in the 1860 election.

[@brentinnes5151]

nothing to do with the South becoming rich on human slavery?

[@s.henrlllpoklookout5069]

No, what it took the North to invade was South Carolina infantry firing on a federal fort

[@Michael-lg9re]

What was the civil war about? Why gosh, it was about 4 years long and gave this guy something to talk about.

[@marylangdon5840]

Engels was hired by Lincoln through agents unnamed to end the because he was unable to stop it. Source: Author Taylor Caldwell

[@raymondswenson1268]

Every state subscribed to Article VI, subordinating every state to the national government. Each state gave up its sovereignty to the national government whose authority came from the people. Each state gave to the national government its power over war, over international affairs and trade, over citizenship,.

[@gordonmorris6359]

Biassed in favor of Lincoln's narrative.

[@currawongee1]

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

[@NotLazySelectivelyMotivated]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@randylplampin1326]

Did you mean to ask for the reason of the "War of Northern Aggression" or did you mean something else?

[@marchess286]

He's not discussing unicorns or oz either

[@s.henrlllpoklookout5069]

How was it a war of Northern aggression when the South shot first?

[@genephillips4311]

"What was the civil war about? Why gosh, it was about 4 years long and gave this guy something to talk about." And his lecture only SEEMED like it took four years!

[@patpeacock8150]

About slavery

[@lauramarkee5536]

Propaganda disguised as reason.

[@roncollins1046]

United states, one nation indivisible, do not have and never have had, since 1789, 'borders' between each other. Some States beginning in 1860 decided they should. They lost. No, every State is NOT a 'border state', contrary to the inflammatory ignorance of a handful of GOP secessionists calling themselves 'governors', who regard the unity of American life as secondary to their own short-term prestige and that of a fat grifter from Queens on whose every word they are more than willing to hang. When, not if, they force the hands of the intricate and complex interagency system of federalism that IS American civilization over the question of what a border is versus a State line, the secessionists will lose again.

[@capecarver]

🤣

[@rowdy9379]

Wanna bet ?

[@roncollins1046]

@@rowdy9379 Bet all you want, it's not my thing. One side starts shooting, the other shoots back. What is any civil war 'about'? Both sides deciding to have one. What difference does it make? There's still slavery, and there's still States demanding sovereignty. Who says the last one ever ended?

[@rowdy9379]

The Convention of States can be called by a majority and whole deal can be dissolved and just have States, dummy.

[@rinkadink66]

if only Americans had stayed in the empire.. slavery had been abolished in the 1830s...😊

[@rowdy9379]

The Scotch/Irish were sick of the English.

[@brentinnes5151]

but they were a republic..

[@italadamwest]

He skipped over the whole tyranny part. 😅

[@josephwurzer4366]

Tyranny by who? The Slave Power or those who sought to crush it?

[@thomasnaue7825]

He speaks so well, but is completely full of shit

[@brianniegemann4788]

What were the actual causes of the Civil War, in your opinion? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why, after earning multiple degrees, 50 years of study and teaching, and obviously knowing minute details about the war, this professor is wrong about its causes.

[@jeffmilroy9345]

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?

[@ambrosephill9]

Just another Lincoln apologist, making excuses for the tyranny of the Federal Government.

[@michaelmazowiecki9195]

The real tyranny was the southern states crushing rule of one ethnic group over another who were treated as chattels, like cattle.

[@pmcclaren1]

So glad someone else knows The TRUTH. He does indeed worship the god of AL. This is called IDOLATRY. He claims to be a Christian. 'You shall have no idols before Me'--

[@RunOfTheHind]

@@pmcclaren1 Are you a Trump supporter? They all seem pretty idolatrous to me, while also claiming to be christians...

[@pmcclaren1]

@@RunOfTheHind There's never been any difference in the partiers. & yes they are 'cult members' as well--

[@RunOfTheHind]

@@pmcclaren1 How refreshing. However, I don't think admiration of the man that ended slavery counts as idolatry. However, snce it sounds like you think the bible is truth, I'm assuming you therefore agree with slavery, since that book is for it?

[@erikrasmussen1380]

The title of this post gives hope that it may have legitimacy. How disappointing that it wastes one’s time on a biased opinion from an arrogant “educator.” Typical highbrow oratory. Pathetic.

[@markteague8889]

Yeah! Propaganda masquerading as history. He spewed Northern post-war propaganda for the entire time.

[@timothymeehan181]

Yeah. Right. As if you’re more qualified to opine here. I suspect you’re also one of those guys who would presume to question the play calling of a Joe Montana, a Tom Brady, a Patrick Mahomes, etc. You’re out of your depth here, buddy. Guelzo’s been studying that era for 50 years, and could explode any argument that you might attempt to make about what YOU think the war was “about”, especially as I suspect you’d simply parrot debunked “lost cause” mythology. Go back to the nursery…😂🎩🇱🇷😎

[@brentinnes5151]

you must have got your degree from beijing university