Calhoun knew that at that pivotal point in america that just freeing the slaves out right would have a devastating impact on not only the country by warfare between both parties but begin a never ending feud between millions of lives for centries to come. An absolute end (pulling the Emergency Brake In traffic) would immediately turn into the bloodiest war in Ametican history and would carry over hate for centuries. He was right. To this day, this country is tearing itself apart because it was not done with finaciall equity (on the slave owners part, they are assholes i get that but pumping the breaks and having more ideas on the table would have changed the course, fineness and a reason to ease into a better society.
I'm from Indiana and its hard to look at america today since the civil war and think these southern patriots were wrong. They were absolutely correct; the harsh truth is that free african americans have ruined every city in our nation. You can't argue otherwise, it's just not a fact. They should have been repatriated after the war as Lincoln intended and planned on doing. Liberia was the destination.
@@PersistentPatriotIf you think African Americans who have done so much do build up the Southern Industry don’t deserve to have their own land in the US, you are sadly mistaken. If you don’t want to live among black people, then give the entire Deep South to black people.
Not capable of governing themselves?? Detroit, D.C., Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, New Orleans, Jacksonville ad nauseum. They sure proved Calhoun right
This is one of the best pieces you guys have put together. Well done. When we discuss tariffs, taxation, control and other issues like states rights, it all begins to make sense. The South, however, lost the larger argument because they dug their heals in over slavery. But, for anyone to dismiss the Southern argument because slavery is wrong, misses the vast majority of the issues that led to this conflict.
The north was not to interfere with slavery going back to the ratification of the constitution. That’s the damn deal that was struck! Specific concessions were made to the smaller southern states with protections for their signing on to the constitution. Minority rights were protected so that smaller states couldn’t be abused by the federal government at behest of the larger states.
I don't see how the south "dug its heels in over slavery." The North's objection to the so-called "expansion of slavery" was the threat to white labor (they objected to free blacks moving into western territories as well) and the power in Congress that the 3/5 clause of the Constitution gave to the Jeffersonian Southern States that they otherwise would not have had. It was the North that dug its heels in.
It’s these subjects in history that get put aside in the name of political correctness, but rarely are complex problems solved with simple solutions. These men’s convictions and actions are still being felt today. Thank you for the insightful video.
"The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century. Commentators on the political left in the United States contend that conservatives use the concept of political correctness to downplay and divert attention from substantively discriminatory behavior against disadvantaged groups.[15][16][17] They also argue that the political right enforces its own forms of political correctness to suppress criticism of its favored constituencies and ideologies.[18][19][20] In the United States, the term has played a major role in the "culture war" between liberals and conservatives." It is not "politically correct" to kneel a sports venues when the national anthem is being played. It is not "politically correct" to refuse to say the pledge of allegiance. It is not "politically correct" to point out that racism and sexism still exist in America.
@@tomace4898 I think he was not hanged as a traitor because there was an effort to reunite the country. I think the only Southerner who was hanged was the man in charge of a Southern Prisoner of War camp.
I actually oppose both Calhoun and Davis as both I see in opposition to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers as the Federalist papers make many provisions for the need of a empowered federal government to crush rebellion. I also see in Calhoun in reading a “Disquiet on Government “ a almost Calvinist Infused neitchean arguments for who rules and who is dominated. Which I view as naturally ending in despotism. It is interesting that until I read the Federalist papers I concentrated on Slavery. Now I concentrate on the fact the constitution was crafted by those seeking to pursue unity at all costs. Note I do not deny both men their keen knowledge I just see them as like Cato using that knowledge to very imperfect ends.
I didn't expect someone with a John Brown profile picture to be so thoughtful and civil! Not trying to insult you here, quite the contrary. I for one see hamilton, "federalism," and the federalist party as being "puritan progeny," if you will. I think new englanders feel/felt themselves entitled to rule over the entirety of the 13 colonies out of a sense of superiority.
What about Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman? Heros and role models that we can be proud of. We should have statutes and celebrate their legacy and contribution to our great country.
While Jefferson Davis did support slavery, he was more interested in defending the rights of the individual states from the encroaching Federal Government of the Lincoln administration. I don't know about Calhoun's position.
Calhoun and Davis were obsessed with preserving slavery! And owing people They were beyond evil 👿 racists ! Their minds were deeply diseased! They must be exposed!! So young people know the truth about why the civil war happened!
The same way CONSERVATIVE Republicans are disenfranchising voting rights. The same way Conservative Democrats had literacy and poll taxes the South to disenfranchise the voting of the descendants of slaves. 🤔😣
@@PersistentPatriot HYperbole. Democrats want to have gun control, not gun prohibition. It would be like Democrats saying the Republicans want to own any weapon they want to. They are the right to bear any arms. Tanks or missiles, hand grenades. There were gun control laws from the foundation of OUR country. The right to bear "arms" is not absolute.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 83 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "พันฤทธิ์ vs ซุปเปอร์บอล วันของโอม MBK"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1b4pkKHa_Fk/mqdefault.jpg)
Calhoun knew that at that pivotal point in america that just freeing the slaves out right would have a devastating impact on not only the country by warfare between both parties but begin a never ending feud between millions of lives for centries to come. An absolute end (pulling the Emergency Brake In traffic) would immediately turn into the bloodiest war in Ametican history and would carry over hate for centuries. He was right. To this day, this country is tearing itself apart because it was not done with finaciall equity (on the slave owners part, they are assholes i get that but pumping the breaks and having more ideas on the table would have changed the course, fineness and a reason to ease into a better society.
I'm from Indiana and its hard to look at america today since the civil war and think these southern patriots were wrong. They were absolutely correct; the harsh truth is that free african americans have ruined every city in our nation. You can't argue otherwise, it's just not a fact. They should have been repatriated after the war as Lincoln intended and planned on doing. Liberia was the destination.
@@PersistentPatriotIf you think African Americans who have done so much do build up the Southern Industry don’t deserve to have their own land in the US, you are sadly mistaken. If you don’t want to live among black people, then give the entire Deep South to black people.
Nobody except for a few extremists wanted to immediately emancipate the slaves... That argument is just not based in historical fact.
Not capable of governing themselves??
Detroit, D.C., Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, New Orleans, Jacksonville ad nauseum.
They sure proved Calhoun right
It doesn't stop there. Look at the entirety of subsaharan Africa.
You misquote Wallace at the end, claiming that he said "segregation today..." but in fact he said "segregation now..."
This is one of the best pieces you guys have put together. Well done. When we discuss tariffs, taxation, control and other issues like states rights, it all begins to make sense. The South, however, lost the larger argument because they dug their heals in over slavery. But, for anyone to dismiss the Southern argument because slavery is wrong, misses the vast majority of the issues that led to this conflict.
The north was not to interfere with slavery going back to the ratification of the constitution. That’s the damn deal that was struck! Specific concessions were made to the smaller southern states with protections for their signing on to the constitution. Minority rights were protected so that smaller states couldn’t be abused by the federal government at behest of the larger states.
I don't see how the south "dug its heels in over slavery." The North's objection to the so-called "expansion of slavery" was the threat to white labor (they objected to free blacks moving into western territories as well) and the power in Congress that the 3/5 clause of the Constitution gave to the Jeffersonian Southern States that they otherwise would not have had. It was the North that dug its heels in.
It’s these subjects in history that get put aside in the name of political correctness, but rarely are complex problems solved with simple solutions. These men’s convictions and actions are still being felt today. Thank you for the insightful video.
"The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century. Commentators on the political left in the United States contend that conservatives use the concept of political correctness to downplay and divert attention from substantively discriminatory behavior against disadvantaged groups.[15][16][17] They also argue that the political right enforces its own forms of political correctness to suppress criticism of its favored constituencies and ideologies.[18][19][20] In the United States, the term has played a major role in the "culture war" between liberals and conservatives." It is not "politically correct" to kneel a sports venues when the national anthem is being played. It is not "politically correct" to refuse to say the pledge of allegiance. It is not "politically correct" to point out that racism and sexism still exist in America.
What are you talking about? I learned about John C Calhoun and Jefferson Davis in US History classes I took in high school and college.
@@tomace4898 I was also taught about Jefferson Davis in high school but not John C. Calhoun. Essentially I was taught that Pres. Davis was a traitor.
@@owlnyc666 Jefferson Davis was a traitor. And he's lucky he wasn't hanged as one.
@@tomace4898 I think he was not hanged as a traitor because there was an effort to reunite the country. I think the only Southerner who was hanged was the man in charge of a Southern Prisoner of War camp.
Governor Wallace in fact Said: Segregation Now... But during the Years He Changed his mind.
I don't agree with everything you say but Jefferson Davis was a good man
Gag Rule: It's applied now to debating Israel funding.
Was the War of Northern Aggression
*southern aggression. I don't recall the North raiding southern forts or during the first shots
Two small forts before sumpter
@@leahunverferth8247
I actually oppose both Calhoun and Davis as both I see in opposition to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers as the Federalist papers make many provisions for the need of a empowered federal government to crush rebellion. I also see in Calhoun in reading a “Disquiet on Government “ a almost Calvinist Infused neitchean arguments for who rules and who is dominated. Which I view as naturally ending in despotism. It is interesting that until I read the Federalist papers I concentrated on Slavery. Now I concentrate on the fact the constitution was crafted by those seeking to pursue unity at all costs. Note I do not deny both men their keen knowledge I just see them as like Cato using that knowledge to very imperfect ends.
I didn't expect someone with a John Brown profile picture to be so thoughtful and civil! Not trying to insult you here, quite the contrary. I for one see hamilton, "federalism," and the federalist party as being "puritan progeny," if you will. I think new englanders feel/felt themselves entitled to rule over the entirety of the 13 colonies out of a sense of superiority.
What about Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman? Heros and role models that we can be proud of. We should have statutes and celebrate their legacy and contribution to our great country.
JUST ANOTHER GREAT VIDEO you never thought would find on this page. Good shit.
While Jefferson Davis did support slavery, he was more interested in defending the rights of the individual states from the encroaching Federal Government of the Lincoln administration. I don't know about Calhoun's position.
Defending the rights of individual states...to slavery.
@@geolongboarderspecifically slavery...
Calhoun and Davis were obsessed with preserving slavery! And owing people They were beyond evil 👿 racists ! Their minds were deeply diseased! They must be exposed!! So young people know the truth about why the civil war happened!
Take a breath!
Davis was not a fire-eater.
He took his pants off in public.
How does today’s Democrat voting scandal apply today to the civil war and controlling other people?
The same way CONSERVATIVE Republicans are disenfranchising voting rights. The same way Conservative Democrats had literacy and poll taxes the South to disenfranchise the voting of the descendants of slaves. 🤔😣
Democrats want to abolish gun rights and to a lesser extent free speech which are guaranteed by the constitution just as slavery was
@@PersistentPatriot Not all Democrats want to "abolish " gun rights. The vast majority want gun "control".
@@PersistentPatriot I have heard some Republicans also want to limit free speech. They want to limit speech that criticized American history.
@@PersistentPatriot HYperbole. Democrats want to have gun control, not gun prohibition. It would be like Democrats saying the Republicans want to own any weapon they want to. They are the right to bear any arms. Tanks or missiles, hand grenades. There were gun control laws from the foundation of OUR country. The right to bear "arms" is not absolute.
Wow. This was hot garbage.