"The old flag never touched the ground.." this is easily the most moving moment in any lecture I've heard. Thank you to Dr. Guelzo for bringing history to life.
If I might be able to add a critique on your teaching style. I wish I'd had more history teachers and professors like you when I was in school and college! I must say that you bring the subject and the timing and the period for life and make it quite enjoyable and memorable and very understandable. Even more so when it's a subject that a person enjoys or is interested in. Thank you very much for this presentation and I look forward to any more lectures that you have in the future. Walter Debnam
Interviewer Brian Lamb was told by Shelby Foote that historians as a professional group would do well to hone their skills as writers, and let the research follow in due course to find and take its own form naturally. Professor Guelzo squeezes the same qualities from the material by blending in his heartfelt convictions.
Mclelland's conduct and intentions backfired. Lincoln in all his wisdom realized that the 'Young Napoleon' must go and let others to lead the Army of the Potomac. Interesting talk by Prof. Allen, Thumbs up.
To the contrary, Whig economic policies were NOT designed to "boost the national economy." Unless by "boost the national economy" one means "line their own pockets, and the pockets of their closest private-sector allies."
I now understand why Lee fought for the South-he was going to show what his dad didnt do-you don’t abandon your son. Now it makes sense. And all that carnage was because of Lighthorse Harry. Incredible insight. The sins of th father in spades.
What is truly self righteous are the pro slavery southerners. There leaders should have been tried for treason. We still need troop to enforce the voting rights act.
So Lincoln publicly stated that it would be treasonous of himself to circumvent the law by arbitrarily freeing the slaves, but he didn't think it was treasonous to secretly use a backdoor excuse for the purpose of not having to deal with the legalities of circumventing the law? Even as a fan of Lincoln and of what he accomplished, this makes it seem like he didn't respect the law as much as he would have us believe.
@D Sullivan His first and foremost duty was to keep the Union from falling apart. Utilizing established law is well within the accepted limits of his post. There was already a large movement against slavery, so there's less of a guarantee that slavery would have lasted more than a decade or two longer if his plan went right than there is of the states being divided forever if it all went bad. If the Confederacy had won the war, no one would have any future say about slavery in the south. It seems almost like a foregone conclusion now that the north would win, but he had no way of telling that then. Luckily it all worked out and we're left to wonder "what if".
I assume you were referring to the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln knew that it was just a war measure, and had a limited effect and no permanence. He knew that abolishing slavery required the 13th amendment. There was nothing improper or backdoor about what he did. Lincoln was willing to bend the law in dealing with the unprecedented difficulties of the Civil War. There were many issues for which there was no clear law. You are not circumventing law when dealing with such.
@@dmbeaster it was only limited by his ability to enforce it and it was permanent enough that those that lost their slaves never got them back. If he considered the southern states as still being part of this nation, then the laws still applied to them, and definitely to him, which makes it improper. The fact that he could free slaves with a personal decree because of "unprecedented difficulties" instead of using the proper legislation, makes it backdoor.
@@ALRIGHTYTHEN. You do not know the history. Go learn the legal logic that supported it. It was a war measure. Asset forfeiture. It's still used legally
@@dmbeaster Lincoln already had the confiscation acts for asset forfeiture. The emancipation proclamation freed the slaves of those that weren't in rebellion, or in support of the rebellion, that happened to be on the wrong side of the front line.
HagbardCeline42 *And THAT.. Ms. Celine42 is itself an AbsoLutely Brilliant observation!!! (*In short.. You just named BOTH of my favorite Lecturers! *Best regards, David)
As usual, Allen Guelzo shows his contempt for and misunderstanding of the South, and particularly Gen. Lee, and the Southern cause, and promotes his revisionist history that the War was over slavery. To the conquerers belongs their right to define history to their own liking.
There is plenty of opportunity for hearing different lecturers on this subject. Shelby Foote was another brilliant contributor to the field of Civil War - or was it the War of Northern Aggression? Heteodoxy is a strength, not a weakness.
You’ve obviously never read Alexander Stevens’ “Cornerstone Speech”, or Lincoln’s famous Second Inaugural. The leading men on both sides, north and south , knew, and said, that the war was about slavery. It was southern scholars in the early 1900’s who engaged in the revisionism, creating the myth of the “Lost Cause”, that the south had fought for “noble” reasons, state’s rights, etc. Sad that some today, like yourself, have fallen for it…🎩🇱🇷
"The old flag never touched the ground.." this is easily the most moving moment in any lecture I've heard. Thank you to Dr. Guelzo for bringing history to life.
I have heard many phenomenal lectures by Allen Guelzo. I love his speaking and his writings. This one was outstanding.
I have to say that Professor gives one of the top lectures I’ve ever heard on this fascinating subject!
ANYTHING by Allen Guelzp is ALWAYS worth hearing and reading.
This man is a great speaker.
An orator from the great traditions of the past. Lincoln would be proud.
If I might be able to add a critique on your teaching style. I wish I'd had more history teachers and professors like you when I was in school and college! I must say that you bring the subject and the timing and the period for life and make it quite enjoyable and memorable and very understandable. Even more so when it's a subject that a person enjoys or is interested in. Thank you very much for this presentation and I look forward to any more lectures that you have in the future.
Walter Debnam
Interviewer Brian Lamb was told by Shelby Foote that historians as a professional group would do well to hone their skills as writers, and let the research follow in due course to find and take its own form naturally. Professor Guelzo squeezes the same qualities from the material by blending in his heartfelt convictions.
7
his words are easy to digest. A pleasure to listen to.
I enjoy the professor’s delivery, kept my attention
I love your teaching style ...im.learning while hearing a great story that your telling .....GREAT JOB
Mclelland's conduct and intentions backfired. Lincoln in all his wisdom realized that the 'Young Napoleon' must go and let others to lead the Army of the Potomac. Interesting talk by Prof. Allen, Thumbs up.
Learning
Liberty and Union; Freedom and Discipline; Right and Responsibility; Privelege and Duty; Person and People.
A lost art. Well done, sir.
To the contrary, Whig economic policies were NOT designed to "boost the national economy."
Unless by "boost the national economy" one means "line their own pockets, and the pockets of their closest private-sector allies."
I now understand why Lee fought for the South-he was going to show what his dad didnt do-you don’t abandon your son. Now it makes sense. And all that carnage was because of Lighthorse Harry. Incredible insight. The sins of th father in spades.
Excellent and Thank you.
Something wrong with microphone 🎤
Something wrong with presenter
"Self-righteous harrumphing." Interesting term to describe anti-slavery politicians.
What is truly self righteous are the pro slavery southerners. There leaders should have been tried for treason. We still need troop to enforce the voting rights act.
So Lincoln publicly stated that it would be treasonous of himself to circumvent the law by arbitrarily freeing the slaves, but he didn't think it was treasonous to secretly use a backdoor excuse for the purpose of not having to deal with the legalities of circumventing the law?
Even as a fan of Lincoln and of what he accomplished, this makes it seem like he didn't respect the law as much as he would have us believe.
@D Sullivan His first and foremost duty was to keep the Union from falling apart. Utilizing established law is well within the accepted limits of his post. There was already a large movement against slavery, so there's less of a guarantee that slavery would have lasted more than a decade or two longer if his plan went right than there is of the states being divided forever if it all went bad.
If the Confederacy had won the war, no one would have any future say about slavery in the south. It seems almost like a foregone conclusion now that the north would win, but he had no way of telling that then.
Luckily it all worked out and we're left to wonder "what if".
I assume you were referring to the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln knew that it was just a war measure, and had a limited effect and no permanence. He knew that abolishing slavery required the 13th amendment. There was nothing improper or backdoor about what he did.
Lincoln was willing to bend the law in dealing with the unprecedented difficulties of the Civil War. There were many issues for which there was no clear law. You are not circumventing law when dealing with such.
@@dmbeaster it was only limited by his ability to enforce it and it was permanent enough that those that lost their slaves never got them back.
If he considered the southern states as still being part of this nation, then the laws still applied to them, and definitely to him, which makes it improper. The fact that he could free slaves with a personal decree because of "unprecedented difficulties" instead of using the proper legislation, makes it backdoor.
@@ALRIGHTYTHEN. You do not know the history. Go learn the legal logic that supported it. It was a war measure. Asset forfeiture. It's still used legally
@@dmbeaster Lincoln already had the confiscation acts for asset forfeiture. The emancipation proclamation freed the slaves of those that weren't in rebellion, or in support of the rebellion, that happened to be on the wrong side of the front line.
What can I say on a 1 to 10 you sir are a 11 please do not stop. civilken
I can listen to Guelzo all day and not get tired. He is to history what Feynman was to physics.
HagbardCeline42 *And THAT.. Ms. Celine42 is itself an AbsoLutely Brilliant observation!!! (*In short.. You just named BOTH of my favorite Lecturers! *Best regards, David)
Brilliant!
As usual, Allen Guelzo shows his contempt for and misunderstanding of the South, and particularly Gen. Lee, and the Southern cause, and promotes his revisionist history that the War was over slavery. To the conquerers belongs their right to define history to their own liking.
There is plenty of opportunity for hearing different lecturers on this subject. Shelby Foote was another brilliant contributor to the field of Civil War - or was it the War of Northern Aggression? Heteodoxy is a strength, not a weakness.
The war was over slavery according to the rebels. They were the ones who made it about slavery, not the North.
"Apostles of Disunion" by Charles Dew -- Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens
for some people im sure it was about slavery ? you disagree ? you attempted treason and failed .... are you glad the north won ?
You’ve obviously never read Alexander Stevens’ “Cornerstone Speech”, or Lincoln’s famous Second Inaugural. The leading men on both sides, north and south , knew, and said, that the war was about slavery. It was southern scholars in the early 1900’s who engaged in the revisionism, creating the myth of the “Lost Cause”, that the south had fought for “noble” reasons, state’s rights, etc. Sad that some today, like yourself, have fallen for it…🎩🇱🇷
He issue was slavery from 1848 to 1861. It’s rather obvious. The issue was always slavery.
A Hack Historian…a shameful presentation to glorify his own misconceptions…far from truth.
Surely, you jest.
corzen //nd.D