Is the Civil War the Revolution We Like to Forget?

Title: Is the Civil War the Revolution We Like to Forget?
Speaker: David Blight
Date: September 12, 2012
Location: campus, Case Western Reserve University

[@jillsorbera7247]

His Civil War lectures as a Yale Professor are putstanding!!!

[@HeyThatsInteresting97]

Yes! I’ve been watching them recently in 2023. Love it

[@coreyjackson5403]

Absolutely brilliant! I love the way he presents the material…he does it in a way almost anyone could understand…I love falling asleep 😴 to that whole Yale series!

[@schimmelfennig1863]

Such a great speaker!

[@aaronosenkarski7451]

Agreed.

[@aaronosenkarski7451]

I love his videos!

[@johnries5593]

I do accept the thesis that the Civil War was the central, defining event in US history. Understanding it is important whether one's ancestors fought in it or not (and mine fought on both sides), because if you don't, then you can't understand US history or modern US politics.

[@capncrunch7259]

@John Ries ~ You are right ! I had ' family ' on the southern side ( mom's adopted family ) though I grew up in N.J. N.J. was very racist and so was her family and now I have ' very conservative " brothers who hate me because I am Liberal !

[@george49743]

@@capncrunch7259 classical liberal or modern "liberal" ?

[@neilhasid3407]

This guy is good.

[@JB-uv4hm]

The Revolution was a Civil War. Like the CW, we modified the historiography of the Revolution to forget about the Loyalist and the brutal sectarian violence.

[@CHistrue]

I would argue that there are three phases of the American Republic. 1776-1865 was the original non-united phase in which we were a nation of states. Then the second American Republic was born, with it all of the sound and fury of the twenties, thirties, World War II, the Space Age, the Civil Rights Era, Viet Nam, War Protests, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, ad infinitum. The Second American Republic spoke in the name of a united people, at least in our name if not in reality. The third phase began with 9/11. I am not sure it is even still a Republic. The new form vests power in the Executive Branch, no longer led by the President but by a circle of intelligensia in various agencies and contracted corporations. It is a frightening shift. Forget "Jefferson/Madison versus Lincoln/FDR." I miss all four!

[@CHistrue]

Leonardo's Truth There is a lot in what you are saying, some of which with which I agree and some not. However, the question that remains is frightening. The question is, "Is there a Republic that never became a despotism?" Name me one.

[@jamesthebearbear6563]

Well said, my friend. .......well said indeed.

[@psilocybemusashi]

prior to the civil war it was "these united states" after it was 'the united states'. think about it.

[@doorcodad]

Great lecture.

[@michaelmaselly5298]

I was a naval officer in charleston sailors and dogs keep off the grass was the theme of that city

[@danielgregg2530]

When did they start teaching naval officers to not write in grammatically correct, complete sentences? You write like a BM 3/c.

[@elieselane3235]

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848.

[@jamesgeorge65]

Oooooooooooo..............you better watch out, Eliese. The leftist historians, like the one giving the presentation, don't want this to get out.

[@nora22000]

Eliese Lane The Southern planters were not able to rise up--they lost, they failed in their bid to govern themselves because nobody would back them because of their sordid cause. Now their apologists are still waving participation trophy flags and whining about it. There's no "culture" and no "way of life" there's just laziness and four years of bloodlust and egos 150 years ago.

[@capncrunch7259]

@Eliese Lane ~ After all, if people were held in concentration camps, and some of our citizens made war on the captors and freed them, would you blame the Liberators? Or the en slavers ?

[@llltdesq]

The context of that quote is interesting, given your implication in using part of a lengthy speech here. Lincoln said this in a speech condemning the clearly false claims of President Polk regarding his justifications for the Mexican-American War. teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-war-with-mexico-speech-in-the-united-states-house-of-representatives/

[@joshuayeidel8607]

The South may have had the inclination, but they lacked Lincoln's other condition... The power. Without foreign intervention, they had neither industrial nor financial strength to win free of the North. And though foreign governments (especially the British) longed to give the Yankees a black eye, they were inhibited by... Slavery. Perhaps a people who attempt to throw off a government which they find excessively egalitarian so that they can continue to oppress another people don't actually fit this Lincoln quote.

[@musicaflowerchild5540]

He sounds like Harrison Ford.

[@zacksmith2227]

no gods no kings no monsters only people

[@christopherrose343]

AMEN its good that war is so horrible lest we love it too much!!!

[@softshoes]

I think the north can forget but I don't think they're a chance in hell the south will.

[@sethgravley6995]

No we will never forget, especially now. It's clear that it never ended, we are not only attacked politically but our Graves monuments and battlefields are also. There used to be laws in place to keep these things from being destroyed but with a particular agenda you can break the laws and create your own.... Which is exactly why there was a war in 1860s. Only difference now is there is no killing...

[@scottamichie]

14th Amendment attributed to Bingham? It was Thaddeus Stevens who deserves the primary attribution.

[@deigamohamed707]

Love him❤❤

[@calengr1]

26:16 Lincoln "remorseless revolutionary struggle.." 2nd inaugural.

[@Gregoryt700]

In a sense, the Civil War started with our Constitution. And ended with the civil rights laws of the 60s. Well, it sort of ended

[@capncrunch7259]

I am afraid it morphed. See Wallace , Nixon , LBJ and the Southern Strategy. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4WVl6asbN2naqc

[@jg3000]

There never was a Civil War. There was a revolution that ended in the South's defeat. Than there was crap the US went through. There never was a Southern government claiming to be the sole government of The United States. They wanted to be their own country. That's a revolution. The Spanish Civil War is a Civil War. The Spanish government vs. The fascist who want to be the government. A Civil War is two factions who want to be the sole government. A revolution is a break off attempt.

[@coreyjackson5403]

Yeee Yeee 🎉

[@calengr1]

29:15 thesis of the A address: rebirth of Amer republic ...30:34 Lincoln at G'burg...31:11 equality alto undefined

[@calengr1]

49:02 Ken Burns Homeric tale

[@nylehotaling675]

Anu, Sumerian language; in Celtic, Mathonwy is the same; Antu, his consort, Manogan in Celtic...

[@johno1396]

To have reconciliation one must have the truth first, like South Africa did.

[@johncecilia4517]

Sounds similar to Harrisonn Ford

[@george49743]

He sounds like Harris Ford

[@RajKumar-ep8pr]

Is this a church by any chance? The inside does look it

[@calengr1]

~39m definition of citizenship

[@kamakf00t]

Sounds more like Harrison Ford than Harrison Ford.

[@thomasearle2341]

I often wonder if it would have been better just to let the seceding south go, and with good riddance. It would have most likely saved 150 plus years of aggravation having to keep appeasing them.

[@stephdrake2521]

You must be a white man. No way you would say such nonsense if your ancestors were enslaved. Dummy

[@andrewo.b.7638]

Let the seceding South go? Big mistake. The Confederate desire for a huge slave empire encompassing Mexico, the Caribbean, even parts of Central and South America would have caused another five or six wars since the 1860's, and even Europe would have been involved. Plus another 10 million black people would have been enslaved. There was a price to pay for putting the whip to black people for 250 years

[@GH-oi2jf]

Thomas Earle - It would not have been better. A hostile, backward, sovereign nation on your border? Why would you want that? It took another hundred years for the south to begin the process of becoming civilized, but it was worth the wait.

[@softshoes]

The check came due for the 3/5s clause in the Constitution. It should have come sooner but we were weak.

[@carywest9256]

@@GH-oi2jf You have to be a moronic leftist with your text?

[@mrgruffy4499]

Is it true that the 14th Amendment was NOT legally ratified by the sufficient number of states? Just what is a "citizen of the United States"? Lawyers like to ask that question because they know the legal definition of "citizen of the United States". Does the definition of "United States mean United States, Inc.? Is it limited to Washington, DC? Is the United States one thing; and the United States of America something else?

[@andylarson19591]

MrGruffy 44 yawn... another prolix jailhouse lawyer

[@michaeltubbs4606]

Even if it had a sufficient number of votes the votes were cast by puppet governments installed by the conquerors during the periond of Reconstruction and martial law/military occupation. If such a thing happened today in any other country the US government would denounce the results as "undemocratic" and thus null and void.

[@JPW3]

No. It's not true.

[@psilocybemusashi]

@@JPW3 in many ways it is true. the south didn't have real elections after the war. hell even maryland didn't have real elections.

[@timothymeehan181]

I’m fairly certain that Lincoln saw the Civil War, and his role/responsibility as politician/President/statesman , as completing/rescuing the revolution begun by the founding fathers. A return to the original principles upon which the nation was founded, after the helm of our “ship of state” had been hijacked by a small group of pro-slavery oligarchs who were succeeding(temporarily, anyway) in setting the nation upon a new track/course…..🙏🎩🇱🇷

[@psilocybemusashi]

not at all. he only cared about saving the union in its entireity. he said so many many times. of course the reason for secession was him winning the election. he suspended habeas corpus and threw secessionists in maryland in jail even those duly elected. the founding fathers Jefferson, said if any state wants to leave the union let them go. lincoln would not.

[@CFLsurfr]

Great imagery and well spoken.

[@calengr1]

44:54 undercount of dead ...DH

[@mrgruffy4499]

From the essay by Lysander Spooner, "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority": "The principle on which the war was waged by the North was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to and support a government that they do not want; and that resistance on their part makes them traitors and criminals. No principle that is possible to be named can be more self-evidently false than this, or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for man thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave." I'm beginning to think that the most important and devastating event in U.S. history is the Civil War, and not the Revolutionary War nor the (planned) attack on the WTC in 2001. It was the Civil War that imprinted on our collective minds the erroneous belief that federal law is superior to states' rights. History is written by the victors. We've been taught by our culture and by public schools to rely on the federal government to solve all our ills, and that federal law trumps state law. How can that be since it was the states who created the federal government as a servant of the state? So why would the issues of secession, states' rights, nullification, or slavery result in a war? The overall plan of our rulers is to control us. According to Ralph Epperson in his book, The Unseen Hand, 1985 REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN "‘War has provided society with a system for stabilizing and controlling national economies . These individuals apparently were concerned that there had been no efforts made to show how they were to control economies during a time of peace. ‘War fills certain functions essential to the stability of our society; until other ways of filling them are developed, the war system must be maintained, and improved in effectiveness.’ In other words, war is necessary for the ruling elite to control the masses.

[@mrgruffy4499]

Beginning at the 52 minute mark, Blight confirms what I wrote above about the Civil War was the impetus and acceptance of big central government. We've been taught that preserving the Union was a good thing. But was it, really? The more I study about the Civil War, the more I conclude that the wrong side won.

[@JPW3]

Considering you've done all of this "study," you must know the Confederacy's central government was all powerful, from the mandatory draft to the usurping of property for the war effort. .

[@mrgruffy4499]

Thanks. What you wrote is also true. So who really are the "Bad Guys"? Not a case of the South being the Good Guys, and the North being the Bad Guys. It just may be the case of our being maneuvered into all these wars which were totally unneeded. Could be the question of which federal power will rule, North or South. And the people are still slaves.

[@TheRobdarling]

MrGruffy 44 it's very simple the bad guy is anyone who believes in the oppression of the other. anyone who believes that they are Superior and have the right to deny freedom to the other... simple as that. every human being has the right to defend themselves against oppression, and I, as a human being believe that I have the responsibility to help in the fight against oppression. that's why I am a liberal. I'm not a leftist I'm not a progressive I'm not a conservative I'm not a right-wing fanatic I am a liberal and I believe in Liberal principles and the Constitution and rule of law.

[@Pandaemoni]

Federal Law being superior to State law is in the text of the original constitution. It's called the Supremacy Clause and it's in Article IV (paragraph 2): "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

[@Gregoryt700]

Interesting premise. As is usual with history stuff on KZbin, it elicits both interesting comments and wacko-fringe comments . Sigh....

[@calengr1]

40:35 list 1) basic demographics ....1/3rd link to Civ War

[@philipcollier7805]

Remorseless revolutionary struggles bring genocides...

[@mikecamacho1993]

In hindsight, I think we would have been better as two countries. Because that's where it's headed again. My family weren't here at that point in history. But the same racial divisions exist and have existed and seem like they will continue to exist. There is a big chunk of white Americans who would like nothing better than to have things as they were in 1860 and before. A very big chunk. And I can't ever feel kinship with people who feel like that

[@psilocybemusashi]

you are just wrong but you're free to go back to where your family comes from. but if you're gonna stay please stop lying about my country.

[@timothymeehan181]

The “Two Country” option was no option. The slave oligarchs simply wanted to create a slave empire all over this continent, a Nazi-style “Reich” founded upon racism & slavery, and simply couldn’t do so as part of the Union. They would’ve created an army of conquest and conquered Mexico, Central America, and then South America, founded upon agricultural capitalism. And THEN where would we have found ourselves. Lincoln understood their “end game”, and said “no more”, this stops here & now. And not just America, but the entire world is a far better place for it…🙏🇱🇷🎩

[@thadstone7877]

I am a radical Repulican , I am always annoyed to no end by Repulicans who support the Confederate Flag or other such Foolishness . .. How could elements within the Tea Party have any respect for the Confederacy ?

[@mikemorales4855]

Don’t worry. The FBI and IRS took care of the Tea Party.

[@Ricky_Evans1611]

At least you don't have to deal with internal conflict. I'm a reluctant Republican. I grew up conservative Democrat but since that's not really a thing anymore I had no choice but to switch parties. I love the Confederacy.

[@mikemorales4855]

@@Ricky_Evans1611 I’m Hispanic and I recently visited Lexington, Virginia to see where Lee lived. I wanted to see where VMI is and where Stonewall Jackson’s statue used to stand. I went to Jackson’s house and saw two apple trees still bearing fruit. The stories are about an incredible period of our history. Men and women of faith and style. Imperfect beings for sure but none the less part of our heritage. There is much to embrace about America. How about Stonewall Jackson teaching his slaves how to read the Bible. Or how about Thomas Jefferson trying to insert the idea of ending slavery into our Declaration of Independence. Let’s hope there are still enough people around to allow freedom of speech and thought,

[@psilocybemusashi]

why. republicans today are nothing like lincoln. hell lincoln didn't even run as a repubican in his reelection bid.

[@psilocybemusashi]

lincoln believed in an infinitely powerful federal government. republicans today believe in states rights and a small federal government. lincoln is the opposite of modern republicans and not in a good way.

[@Casedork]

I think David Blight thinks he’s Abraham Lincoln

[@AdamBechtol]

:p

[@scottamichie]

Why always “we” this? What’s with the “we?”! It’s the SOUTH that wants to forget, or worse, distort and lie in a lost cause mythology!!

[@karencarter8292]

No, it was the second war for independence. And it was lost.

[@JPW3]

You're right. The traitors lost. Huzzah!

[@rootpass74]

Ok boomer

[@gegaoli]

This guy sounds much like the actor Harrison Ford. Hard to take him seriously though when the professor redefines the word "revolution". A revolution is a forcible OVERTHROW of a government or social order in favor of a new system. Secession is the withdrawing formally, in this case, from a Union. Secession is what eleven of the southern states did, which ultimately resulted in the Civil War. NOT a revolution. One of the reasons why the U.S. did not prosecute Jefferson Davis after the war was because the legality of secession was debatable, and they wanted to avoid this issue. A revolution it was not professor.

[@JPW3]

+gegaoli So keeping the Union together and ending slavery is not a revolution?

[@jamesthebearbear6563]

I would add that there is a touch of William Hurt to his voice. You're bang on with Ford though. ...maybe 60 - 40 (Ford - Hurt)

[@iain349]

I downvoted only cos I disagree - but i think your arguments are still sound and interesting though - good perspective.

[@michaeltowslee4111]

The differences between revolution and rebellion is who wins. Don't ever doubt it.

[@gegaoli]

@@michaeltowslee4111 I already gave the difference. Not even up for interpretation.

[@jimterry6150]

Not all Republicans are racist, but all racist vote Republican.

[@carywest9256]

Your delusional...

[@claudeabraham2347]

Racists voting Republican does not make Republican party racist. Before Civil rights rulings, white supremists had a home in the Democratic party. Dems, especially in the south, thought along the lines of a white Supreme st. After Civil rights, Dems accepted blacks voting, & became the party committed to helping blacks. Not just by not oppressing blacks, but by proactively helping blacks. Snap, affirmative action, college loans & grants, minority business loans, head start etc. The Dem party since then gives blacks preferential treatment as a way to compensate for past injuries. Reps were about equal respect under law for all people. They still are. So post Civil rights, which party benefits a white Supreme st? Neither offers white supremacy in this age. Dems offer preferential treatment for blacks. Reps offer equal treatment. So white supremacist is certainly better off being treated as an equal than as an oppressor or inferior. White supremists hate racism & love racism, depending who is targeted by racism. Reps believe racism against whites is wrong, as well as racism against blacks, & others. In pre Civil rights, a black supremist voted Rep because equal respect is better than white supremist Dems. Before Civil rights, black supremists voted Rep. After Civil rights, white supremists vote Rep. Supremists both, black, & white, have both chosen equality over 2nd class citizenship. Reps offer equal respect. No brainer there.

[@andreabrown4541]

@@claudeabraham2347 Do you understand the basic definition of white supremacy?

[@claudeabraham2347]

@@andreabrown4541 yes I do. A white supremist believes that his white race is intellectually & virtuously superior to other races & therefore should wield more power than other races & receive preferential treatment. What is your definition? One more question. Is a black supremist morally better than a white supremist. How about Arab supremist, Asian supremist, Indian supremist, etc?

[@Ricky_Evans1611]

Not true. There are hundreds of nations that are not the United States, none of which have a Republican party.

[@jakealden2517]

The South will rise again. And I mean this in the very best way. The "true" South has been distorted by northern historians since the end of the war. As they say, the victors write the history books. The truth about the South is gradually coming to life again, and in time its story will be told again. Very few southerners actually owned slaves, and not a single boy fighting for the CSA was fighting to defend slavery. The South was oppressed by northern political and economic policies that placed it at a disadvantage. Its list of grievances was very long, and slavery was not at the top of that list. I do believe the Civil War (although not a true civil war because the South was not attempting to overthrow the seated government) was a revolution, but not in a good way. The country that emerged from that war was an oppressive, tyrannical regime that continues to this day. The South will rise again, freedom will rise again, and this dictatorship will be destroyed.

[@JPW3]

"Its list of grievances was very long, and slavery was not at the top of that list." LOL. Have you ever read the secession declarations by the Confederate states? Any of them? They are all clear about the importance of slavery and disunion. Your opinion might get lots of play, but it's devoid of history.

[@althesmith]

I'm afraid the kid would actually have to read to understand the secession documents. The "Cornerstone Speech" makes it very clear.

[@TheRobdarling]

Jake Alden spewing revisionist ignorance from beginning to end.Well done delusional one.

[@Markvdl25]

Make Georgia Howl Again

[@nora22000]

Jake Alden The South couldn't function before it seceded from the Union. The factors were squeezing the planters, and expansion into territories was their next move. The mon planter economy was very small.

[@bazzatheblue]

Not yanks again,I though this was about an interesting civil war and revolution.sadly not.

[@saramynar8935]

Fortunately the American Civil War and Revolution are very interesting, not boring Euro-trash stuff no one likes. Especially limey history which is as dull as a blunted rock.

[@bazzatheblue]

@@saramynar8935 haha. Yanks are so full of it.

[@drmartin5062]

This guy is pretty biased against Texas and the south. I do not enjoy this man's lecture to his impressionable students. Northwestern

[@nurlatifahmohdnor8939]

second-hand = musta_mal (Ar) Page 1073 second hand = n a pointer on the face of a timepiece that indicates the seconds. second-hand = (T) adj 1 previously owned or used. 2 not from an original source or experience. 3 dealing in or selling goods that are not new: a secong-hand car dealer. ▪adv 4 from a source of previously owned or used goods: he prefers to buy second-hand. 5 not directly: he got the news second-hand.

[@calengr1]

50:30 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Catton

[@nylehotaling675]

Anu, Sumerian language; in Celtic, Mathonwy is the same; Antu, his consort, Manogan in Celtic...