H.W. Brands | Heirs of the Founders: The Epic Rivalry of Henry Clay, John Calhoun and Daniel Webster

[@kellybrianfitzroy2512]

Very well spoken! I look forward to reading the book and pondering the current political sitautions through the historicity of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster's political motivations and actions.

[@kamilziemian995]

I like to listen to H.W. Brands.

[@Borella309]

Wow, came for for some U.S. History and got this guy's resume and most of his history - I'm bailing at the 9 minute mark.

[@robertbates6249]

this guy would be a good Lincoln imposter

[@davidwilmotsghost7341]

This isn't the first book about Clay, Calhoun,and Webster as a group. The Great Triumvirate by Merrill D. Peterson was published in 1988. Read it as a companion to this book. The biography about me is titled "David Wilmot, Free-Soiler: A Biography of the Great Advocate of the Wilmot Proviso" by Charles Going.

[@matthewhall4995]

Is that hair on purpose?

[@__malte]

1:01:50 The signs of a great prescient thinker!

[@goedelite]

Though this video entertainment is entitled, "Heirs of the Founders...", we, US citizens today, are certainly not the heirs of the founders. Clay, Calhoun, and Webster may have been, but this is a far different country from what they received. They received a representative republic, though the representation was limited to propertied whites in most cases. One may say with much reason that the same is true now, but there is a difference. In our day, there are corporations, and in 1886 the Constitution was was turned inside out by a SCOTUS clerk who read the 14th amendment as breathing personhood into the collective Pinocchio of corporations. One may suppose from the silence of his employers, the honorable justices of the Court, that he was speaking for them and was ready to "take the heat" if there had been any. There does not seem to have been any. That decision bore its poisonous fruit, and we are not heirs of the founders. We are the subjects, not of a king but of an oligarchy who own the controlling shares of our corporations. As far as war-making is concerned, we might just as well be the subjects of a martial king because the Constitution has been shown powerless to prevent an almost unbroken sequence of wars pursued by this country, certainly since the end of WW2. We are certainly not the heirs of a country which the founders had hoped would avoid the wars produced by the power of kings. More can be added to that observation.

[@diegomagellan]

Prophetic on roe vs wade

[@goedelite]

When Prof Brands addresses very recent Presidents, Bush II and Obama, he makes excuses for what was done by them and their administrations with regard to making war, committing aggression, and condoning torture and even the denial of rights dating back to the Magna Carta. Though I enjoyed his discussions on the first 200 years of US history, I am greatly disappointed by his failure to condemn US presidents who, as Noam Chomsky writes, are indictable war criminals by the standards the US employed to try the NAZIs at Nuremberg from 1947-49.

[@gavinguo7772]

talk about Donald Trump and Rockefeller also as Morgan, and that the elected officials of the country were the ones that people had chosen

[@aaronzadrozny8685]

Hair

[@czupryn98]

Could you imagine how amazing this man would be if he could make it even ONE speech without taking cheap shots at Trump? If I wanted a betamale to insert opinions on today’s politics, I’d turn on MSNBC and listen to Brand’s disgraced colleague Jon Meacham.

[@GH-oi2jf]

No amount of shots at Trump, cheap or otherwise, is too many. He is a fascist and a threat to the Republic.

[@jhgust]

Time to take your pills.

[@skate103]

He always talks WAY too much about himself - just get to the topic. 🥱