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

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.

Such a great speaker!

This guy is good.

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

"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.

Great lecture.

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!

no gods no kings no monsters only people

He sounds like Harrison Ford.

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.

Love him❤❤

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeee Yeee 🎉

He sounds like Harris Ford

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

49:02 Ken Burns Homeric tale

Sounds similar to Harrisonn Ford

Sounds more like Harrison Ford than Harrison Ford.

~39m definition of citizenship

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

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.

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…..🙏🎩🇱🇷

44:54 undercount of dead ...DH

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

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

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.

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?

Remorseless revolutionary struggles bring genocides...

I think David Blight thinks he’s Abraham Lincoln

Ok boomer

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 ?

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

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

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!!

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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