Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
David Blight - The Civil War in American Memory
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 авг 2024
- An OAH Distinguished Lecture by David Blight, Class of 1954 Professor of American History and director of the Gilder Lehrman Center at Yale University.
28:34 Blight relates Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream Speech" to the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation
33:41 He describes Martin Luther King Jr.'s request of John F. Kennedy to issue a second Emancipation Proclamation.
This lecture was presented during the annual History Forum lecture series at the Minnesota History Center in St. Paul, Minnesota. Recorded by WNAV, Inc., in March 2013.
To learn more about this speaker or to schedule a lecture, visit:
lectures.oah.org/lecturers/lec...
This is one of the more engaging lectures I've ever heard.
He rambles a lot but I honestly enjoy it. He’s not only insightful but also surprisingly funny
But he doesn't get to the point, so people lose interest.
Dave, my history teacher at Northern High, what I thought I learned then and what I know now about American history is mindblowing. What a great deception of the whole mess, this American history. Venetta Pitts. More to come.
Thank you, President Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
Great. As I was listening I was pulling up the documents he references, reading the Draft Second Emancipation Proclamation, the I Have a Dream Speech, Warren's The Legacy of the Civil War as well as a detailed review of it, things not possible in 2013. I encourage any listener to do the same. Blight's lecture is an entry point to the depth and breadth of Civil War Memory.
It does take him awhile to get to the point. Once he does, he's great!
He should get to the point from the START, or he loses the argument.
Close your eyes. He sounds like Harrison Ford.
Yes he does sound like Hans Solo!
Thanks.
Yes, he mumbles and drones on.
Absolutely beautiful
MLK was a student of history and when he gave that speech, he understood the moment and wakened the conscience of America.
Begins at 2:05
Prof. Blight... You Rule!
Professor Blight was born in 1949. He graduated from Yale in 1954. Wow.
jesuisravi wat
He graduated undergrad in 1971, got his Masters in 1976 and Ph.D in 1985. He didn't attend Yale undergrad, but was hired by them in 2003.
@@Pandaemoni OP was making a joke about Dr. Blight's being "Class of 1954 Professor of American History "
So he was 5 when he graduated from Yale? He is a Master historian!
Han Solo?
They only play the last paragraph of the mountaintop speech to. Read that whole thing. Be astounded, then get the recording of his speech On the War in Vietnam, (given at his own church) not the printed one he did at Riverside Church, it' not the same by a long shot.
Where'd you find the recording of his speech on the Vietnam War?
The CSA said that the states were separate sovereign nations from the American Revolution, while the USA said that they never were, just SINGLE nation.
Simple as that.
So who was right? THE CSA. The states formed SEPARATE nations, never a single nation. NEVER "one nation."
This is so categorically false. Have you read any American political documents in the 1780s? The federalist papers? The constitution itself? Or looked at real world examples where federal power is exercised like the whiskey rebellion? Sure the federal government is expanded and increased after the civil war but that’s because like Prof. Blight says a new republic was born. It had to be in order for the union to persist
His points about the antiquity of wholesale slaughter and destruction (together with genocide) are well taken. One example he doesn't cite but might have is the biblical Book of Lamentations, together with a few selected Psalms. "War is hell" and non-combatants are frequently the biggest victims.
Thats not a history book
Following-up on my prior comment, there exist numerous laws in reference to this issue, of which most begin argument through Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th Amendment. Counter-arguments usually revolve around what is known as the Supremacy Clause. However, the Supremacy Clause does not apply in this instance as those laws affecting such a warrant are (in most all cases) not adopted in pursuance of the Constitution. As such, those laws in affect of warrant and arrest are enumerated to the state. Regardless technical legal interpretations, the most issue at hand is the historic role of sheriff - a subject on which you surely ought to be enlightened. To greatly simply a grand history, it was to these purposes and prior corruptions of sheriffs that our founders demanded all sheriffs be elected officials - to the protection of civil rights and liberties.
One consequence of divided sovereignty and the Supremacy Clause is that federal agents are held not to be responsible to state authorities when acting as such, another is that state agents are only accountable to federal authorities to the extent that they violate federal law. This means that the states don't have much say about what happens on federal military bases, but it also means that the feds don't have the authority to enlist local police in the enforcement of federal law (though state and federal authorities can and do coordinate their efforts).
The popular election of sheriffs has definitely been a mixed blessing. To the good, abuse can cost one his job (I remember that happening in San Diego when I lived there); but there is always the temptation to administer partial justice and to persecute unpopular minorities. And the more directly elected offices there are, the harder it is for voters to keep track of those elected. It should be noted that neither the US Constitution nor any early state constitutions required directly elected sheriffs or even that the office exist. As far as I can tell, the movement for them is connected with Jacksonian Democracy and dates to the second quarter of the Nineteenth Century. To this day, not all states require directly elected sheriffs and some of those that do (like Virginia) do not require that they head the county police.
He kind of rambles on a lot before he gets to the Civil War talk, but that's not unusual for this guy. He's brilliant, but sometimes digresses too much from the topic he's supposed to talk about.
Too much current politics.
Professor? Maybe at one point in the past. Now, patronizing entertainment historian. He gives his audience exactly what he knows they want.
As a pure academic, purposely reserving scholarship he well knows would expose the all-too-real balance, is disrespectful to the intellect of audience members. Predictably, they're all in for being patronized. They love every word. He makes his fee. Everyone goes home happy (and hoodwinked).
Not the best lecture ever.
jeez, get to the point.
Agreed I am watching this for my history class and he just goes on and on. Not getting to the point!
Texas Exile .
@@ASLTheatre TJ...what is the point? Point of What? Point according to Who? The "point" is there is no point or there are dozens of points. No, this is not a HS history lesson...I can understand your confusion, but the Civil War cannot be answered in a multiple choice quiz.
Someday, maybe, you’ll acquire the wisdom to appreciate wisdom.
Blight is using a tool of prose in a rhetorical forum. Every example ties Civil War remembrances to more recent times. It is a long way around to get to his thesis. But, it works. the examples will stick in the mind in order to promote more thought. A study of rhetorical styles, syntax, and the the use of language might serve you and others well. When studying history patience is not only a virtue- it is required.
Professor Blight, You are obviously a well-read man, however your knowledge regarding legal history is somewhat lacking. It is not nullification to either redefine or reassert existing law. A proposed law (whether it be in Montana or any other State) which would require FBI submission to a local sheriff for arrest could only be a State assertion to actually enforce existing law and custom - such as recent Arizona law reasserts requirements for border patrol. It is already required for the FBI to submit warrants to sheriffs in all 50 states. However, those requirements have been ignored for the last 50 years - likely owing to a simple historic/legal ignorance on the part of many sheriffs. That lack of knowledge has waned, the result of efforts by those involved in the 1990's Patriot Movement. I fully welcome any debate on this issue.