The slavery issue is very important, but what I think everybody is losing sight of is the fact that Polk had by far the best mullet in presidential history.
The lady who kept calling in, claiming to be a "historian" blamed Polk for the Dred Scot Decision, despite the fact that he had been dead since 1849.....
A rather revealing 'life portrait' of James Polk. Watching this in retrospect, in January of 2022, and having read Joel Silbey's "Storm Over Texas: The Annexation Controversy and The Road to Civil War" (Oxford Press 2005); I am further convinced that our forefathers who fought the Revolutionary War; who wrote 'The Bill of Rights and framed the US Constitution might've had good intentions, but seemingly 'blinked' when it came to the 'inalienable rights and equality of man. Granted, a lot of stark differences when one compares an 18th and 19th century 'agrarian society' to todays 'high tech society. One signifies long hard labor, the other the science of creating 'convenience'. It can be easy and overwhelming to draw conclusions using modern day standards. How exactly does one honestly and correctly perceive what was 'normal in 1776? Who knew that the distances and differences in societies then could later cause so much death and destruction by a willingness to 'blink'. One has to wonder how the issue of 'slavery' was essentially absent/omitted when there were the long discussions as mentioned in 'The Federalist Papers'. The very person, Jefferson, who authored our 'Declaration of Independence' and later to have initiated and later promoted the philosophy of 'MANIFEST DESTINY' by directing Lewis & Clark to their expedition in search of a water way to the Pacific; he in fact by his documented facts contradicted his very own words in his personal 'application' when it comes to slavery. Others who emulated Jeffersonian 'Manifest Destiny' philosophy were in fact Andrew Jackson and Zachory Taylor. Both were one time uniformed soldiers who went into areas of native American populations and siezed those areas, with or without the consent of Congress. Not to suggest Polk was 'right', but he did follow the examples and firmly believed in the same philosophy as did Jackson and Jefferson. To them 'slavery' wasn't an 'issue' of inhumanity. Rather it was seen as an everyday occurrence that had been there for 4 generations or more and was firmly a part or foundations of the southern agrarian economy. The wealth generated by a population dependent upon an agrarian society was all there was to be had; that brought consumable goods to market by horse powered wagons and sailing vessels and thus brought people over distance together. Surely one didn't drive their own team of horses 60miles in a day or two to market. Until the steamboat, telegraph and later the automobile and plane became regularly used means of transportation, people had little reasons or means to travel beyond their own communities. News was typically carried by word of mouth, and just how 'reliable' was that? Work was hard and 'travel' would've been considered a luxury for the 'well heeled' and rich. I would imply that the same 'standard' would be normal for those who travelled to Philadelphia (before D.C.) to form a 'Confederation of States' government. Mail was practically the only thing that 'travelled' any distance with regularity, and that by horseback, coach or sailing vessel. The point being made is that distance was a major obstacle to 'immediate' conversation/communication between what was then considered the most populous parts of a new nation. As wave after wave of unregulated and desperate immigration to our very shores occurred these same methods of transportation limited what one knew of another's personal traditions or religious values; these not being the same, meant they would know before hand, by earlier mail, where they would find their values and traditions welcome. This same goes on, even through today. I've not yet read this book being promoted in the present interview. I am aware though that each author has a definitive perspective that they want to enlighten their intended reader with. Joel Silbey's was fairly obvious, that, by the very title. As one who tries to understand the 'why, how we are, and the who we are is based on influential personalities in history, I typically read more than one 'source' and compare notes to see where and if there are mutual points that agree on particular subject matter. I've heard quite a bit in this interview as responses to caller questions that address a lot of the 'mutual points that agree', brought out in Silbey's "Storm Over Texas'. I'm not sure that I heard this author identify the posed questions to the content of his book. Perhaps I've missed something 'important' in not hearing the connection, but it does demonstrate to me the difficulty in transmitting the intended message; using the technologies of today. I did enjoy the call from Portland, OR. From that I gathered that the caller and Mr. Seal both had more than a passing familiarization of Mexican history. I found the contents of that conversation 'enlightening'. I would've enjoyed hearing the caller's response after Mr Seal spoke of the woman from Boston, who was married and lived in Mexico, then that conversation/letter from Sam Houston in reference to Mexico declaring that slavery was forbidden, and Houston's follow up remark to that. In any event, Seal comes across as a 'studied' and well-read historian. I did catch his comment earlier on that he'd taught college history... I would also like to compliment this interview/Presidential series in this instance for the collaboration with the director of the 'James K Polk Home'; Mr. John Holtzapple, as his knowledge adds significant historical perspective to events around that epoch. Well done indeed! I would recommend Silbey's "Storm Over Texas" for his ability to enlighten with stark details the politicization and by which the issue of 'slavery' came into play in our nation's "Manifest Destiny" to any serious student of history/political science. Seems that 'Jeffersonian Democracy' as that demonstrated by James Polk, and learned from his mentor, President Andrew Jackson; at least by these standards, has too many modern-day connections with the past! One must read it to believe it! If not for another reason, it would make an excellent 'companion reader' while one 'investigates' this modern-day popular topic. All in all, I think that the author, in this interview, was found to be well read and an educated man. The fact that his book as discussed in the interview, focuses on a president in a crucial time of US History, doesn't seem to include the larger picture of a country among others, who had already outlawed 'slavery'. England and Mexico were only two. Silbey's book does look at the broader view, but also goes into detailed depth about the 'political aspects' and influences of the time.
I'm listening to this as I'm working on a cross stitch of the presidents and the way Holtzapple was like....I'm not touching that last comment with a ten foot pole was nothing short of hilarious. Awkwardly hilarious.
54:00 Caller: “The spot resolution! The spot resolution! The spot resolution!” Historian and expert on Polk: “I have NO IDEA what you’re talking about.” Caller: “The spot resolution! The spot resolution!” Historian: “??!?!??!”
This series is wonderful in that it's candid with the influx of callers, their range of questions, and often astute answers. With the Polk episode, it was compounded with the slavery issue, which I find important to address. P.S. It appears the end of this upload has a lapse into the introduction; I presume this is a VHS copy that is perhaps damaged...? Nonetheless, thank you very much for these uploads!
"American blood has been spilled on American soil" was the rallying cry for the Mexican war, Abe Lincoln commented in Congress that"American blood has been spilled in a Mexican bean field"
1:36:30 This lady always calls in complaining about slavery. Ive been watching this series and this is about the fifth time shes popped up complaining about slavery. How did she kept on getting through? Shes so annoying.
She’s right and her voice is important, they do gloss over the active role each of these men played in what any thinking person can see were crimes against humanity. The role each played in the native genocides is glossed over as well. When slavery is discussed it is done so in rather remote terms. It’s good to have her remind folks. If it bothers you to have the issue raised that’s all the more reason it should be.
they don’t gloss over anything. They go out of their way to explain the evil of slavery. I’m glad she has a forum to speak her mind but every episode it’s gets redundant and starts to fall on deaf ears. important points but she needed a fresher take now and then
@@jaikwillis People already know slavery is evil, we don't need to be knocked over the head with it. Theres 10 million slaves in present day Africa. If anyone really cared about slavery then they should do something about that.
@@jaikwillis That's not true. If historians talk about slavery they accuse them of "romanticizing and glorying" slavery and if they don't talk slavery they accuse them of "white washing and glossing over" slavery. People are tired of this "Racists if you do and racist if you don't" mentality. Bottom line, if someone is upset over slavery then go dig up the guilty party but the attacks on innocent historians is got to stop. This is the result of political correctness instead of trying to keep the politics of the day in context to the time period.
Page 238 In an attempt to negotiate differences, the President of the United States, James K. Polk, offered Mexico $40,000,000 for California and New Mexico.
I'm not saying I want the whole program to be about Polk's involvement with slavery but I will say that people calling in to rationalize slavery as an justifiable institution at the time is just plain wrong. I can understand why so few 19th century people questioned it (it was an enduring and prominent institution that permeated American culture) but that does nothing in the way of justifying it. It was a horrific moral blind-spot of that day. Even people in that context knew it was wrong and wrote thoroughly on it. Anyway, I found myself sick to my stomach listening to these callers try to side-step the topic as a distraction to the conversation rather than a major fault within Polk's legacy and a prominent influence on the 19th century psyche.
The slavery issue is very important, but what I think everybody is losing sight of is the fact that Polk had by far the best mullet in presidential history.
I was subconsciously admiring it too.
Was there in 2003 and talked to JH. Great guy! God Bless
The lady who kept calling in, claiming to be a "historian" blamed Polk for the Dred Scot Decision, despite the fact that he had been dead since 1849.....
A rather revealing 'life portrait' of James Polk. Watching this in retrospect, in January of 2022, and having read Joel Silbey's "Storm Over Texas: The Annexation Controversy and The Road to Civil War" (Oxford Press 2005); I am further convinced that our forefathers who fought the Revolutionary War; who wrote 'The Bill of Rights and framed the US Constitution might've had good intentions, but seemingly 'blinked' when it came to the 'inalienable rights and equality of man.
Granted, a lot of stark differences when one compares an 18th and 19th century 'agrarian society' to todays 'high tech society. One signifies long hard labor, the other the science of creating 'convenience'. It can be easy and overwhelming to draw conclusions using modern day standards. How exactly does one honestly and correctly perceive what was 'normal in 1776? Who knew that the distances and differences in societies then could later cause so much death and destruction by a willingness to 'blink'.
One has to wonder how the issue of 'slavery' was essentially absent/omitted when there were the long discussions as mentioned in 'The Federalist Papers'. The very person, Jefferson, who authored our 'Declaration of Independence' and later to have initiated and later promoted the philosophy of 'MANIFEST DESTINY' by directing Lewis & Clark to their expedition in search of a water way to the Pacific; he in fact by his documented facts contradicted his very own words in his personal 'application' when it comes to slavery. Others who emulated Jeffersonian 'Manifest Destiny' philosophy were in fact Andrew Jackson and Zachory Taylor. Both were one time uniformed soldiers who went into areas of native American populations and siezed those areas, with or without the consent of Congress. Not to suggest Polk was 'right', but he did follow the examples and firmly believed in the same philosophy as did Jackson and Jefferson. To them 'slavery' wasn't an 'issue' of inhumanity. Rather it was seen as an everyday occurrence that had been there for 4 generations or more and was firmly a part or foundations of the southern agrarian economy.
The wealth generated by a population dependent upon an agrarian society was all there was to be had; that brought consumable goods to market by horse powered wagons and sailing vessels and thus brought people over distance together. Surely one didn't drive their own team of horses 60miles in a day or two to market. Until the steamboat, telegraph and later the automobile and plane became regularly used means of transportation, people had little reasons or means to travel beyond their own communities. News was typically carried by word of mouth, and just how 'reliable' was that? Work was hard and 'travel' would've been considered a luxury for the 'well heeled' and rich. I would imply that the same 'standard' would be normal for those who travelled to Philadelphia (before D.C.) to form a 'Confederation of States' government. Mail was practically the only thing that 'travelled' any distance with regularity, and that by horseback, coach or sailing vessel. The point being made is that distance was a major obstacle to 'immediate' conversation/communication between what was then considered the most populous parts of a new nation.
As wave after wave of unregulated and desperate immigration to our very shores occurred these same methods of transportation limited what one knew of another's personal traditions or religious values; these not being the same, meant they would know before hand, by earlier mail, where they would find their values and traditions welcome. This same goes on, even through today.
I've not yet read this book being promoted in the present interview. I am aware though that each author has a definitive perspective that they want to enlighten their intended reader with. Joel Silbey's was fairly obvious, that, by the very title. As one who tries to understand the 'why, how we are, and the who we are is based on influential personalities in history, I typically read more than one 'source' and compare notes to see where and if there are mutual points that agree on particular subject matter. I've heard quite a bit in this interview as responses to caller questions that address a lot of the 'mutual points that agree', brought out in Silbey's "Storm Over Texas'. I'm not sure that I heard this author identify the posed questions to the content of his book. Perhaps I've missed something 'important' in not hearing the connection, but it does demonstrate to me the difficulty in transmitting the intended message; using the technologies of today.
I did enjoy the call from Portland, OR. From that I gathered that the caller and Mr. Seal both had more than a passing familiarization of Mexican history. I found the contents of that conversation 'enlightening'. I would've enjoyed hearing the caller's response after Mr Seal spoke of the woman from Boston, who was married and lived in Mexico, then that conversation/letter from Sam Houston in reference to Mexico declaring that slavery was forbidden, and Houston's follow up remark to that. In any event, Seal comes across as a 'studied' and well-read historian. I did catch his comment earlier on that he'd taught college history... I would also like to compliment this interview/Presidential series in this instance for the collaboration with the director of the 'James K Polk Home'; Mr. John Holtzapple, as his knowledge adds significant historical perspective to events around that epoch. Well done indeed!
I would recommend Silbey's "Storm Over Texas" for his ability to enlighten with stark details the politicization and by which the issue of 'slavery' came into play in our nation's "Manifest Destiny" to any serious student of history/political science. Seems that 'Jeffersonian Democracy' as that demonstrated by James Polk, and learned from his mentor, President Andrew Jackson; at least by these standards, has too many modern-day connections with the past! One must read it to believe it! If not for another reason, it would make an excellent 'companion reader' while one 'investigates' this modern-day popular topic.
All in all, I think that the author, in this interview, was found to be well read and an educated man. The fact that his book as discussed in the interview, focuses on a president in a crucial time of US History, doesn't seem to include the larger picture of a country among others, who had already outlawed 'slavery'. England and Mexico were only two. Silbey's book does look at the broader view, but also goes into detailed depth about the 'political aspects' and influences of the time.
I'm listening to this as I'm working on a cross stitch of the presidents and the way Holtzapple was like....I'm not touching that last comment with a ten foot pole was nothing short of hilarious. Awkwardly hilarious.
54:00 Caller: “The spot resolution! The spot resolution! The spot resolution!” Historian and expert on Polk: “I have NO IDEA what you’re talking about.” Caller: “The spot resolution! The spot resolution!” Historian: “??!?!??!”
Holy cow “Karen” calling in at about 1hr54 min is so racist.
This series is wonderful in that it's candid with the influx of callers, their range of questions, and often astute answers. With the Polk episode, it was compounded with the slavery issue, which I find important to address.
P.S. It appears the end of this upload has a lapse into the introduction; I presume this is a VHS copy that is perhaps damaged...? Nonetheless, thank you very much for these uploads!
Ive been watching the series and I would say 90% of the calls sucks. One stupid question after the next.
T Money that video lapse occurs on several subsequent episodes as well and doesn’t resolve as rapidly as this one does.
You Can watch it on C-span.org
"American blood has been spilled on American soil" was the rallying cry for the Mexican war, Abe Lincoln commented in Congress that"American blood has been spilled in a Mexican bean field"
1:36:30
This lady always calls in complaining about slavery. Ive been watching this series and this is about the fifth time shes popped up complaining about slavery. How did she kept on getting through? Shes so annoying.
She said "we leave out the fact that they were slave owners"Really???? It's brought up at every opportunity! Good Grief!!
She’s right and her voice is important, they do gloss over the active role each of these men played in what any thinking person can see were crimes against humanity. The role each played in the native genocides is glossed over as well. When slavery is discussed it is done so in rather remote terms. It’s good to have her remind folks. If it bothers you to have the issue raised that’s all the more reason it should be.
they don’t gloss over anything. They go out of their way to explain the evil of slavery. I’m glad she has a forum to speak her mind but every episode it’s gets redundant and starts to fall on deaf ears. important points but she needed a fresher take now and then
@@jaikwillis
People already know slavery is evil, we don't need to be knocked over the head with it. Theres 10 million slaves in present day Africa. If anyone really cared about slavery then they should do something about that.
@@jaikwillis That's not true. If historians talk about slavery they accuse them of "romanticizing and glorying" slavery and if they don't talk slavery they accuse them of "white washing and glossing over" slavery. People are tired of this "Racists if you do and racist if you don't" mentality. Bottom line, if someone is upset over slavery then go dig up the guilty party but the attacks on innocent historians is got to stop. This is the result of political correctness instead of trying to keep the politics of the day in context to the time period.
Dred Scott was a supreme court decision decided during the Buchanan administration a decade after Polk's death.
Page 238
In an attempt to negotiate differences, the President of the United States, James K. Polk, offered Mexico $40,000,000 for California and New Mexico.
Mexico refused his money offer, and on May 13, 1846, President Polk announced the decision of Congress to declare war.
54:39 Lincoln didn’t look that bad there
RIP William Seale
Sounds as though he may have had IBD?
Polk to Mexico: We want half your territory. Give it to us. Mexico to Polk: No. Polk to Mexico: Then we will steal it from you.
なんで後半差別的な発言が多いの？？？
番組の時代を考えたら仕方ないかもだけど、今思うと怖すぎる…
それにロバート・E・リーが奴隷を所有したことないという発言した男性さ、リー奴隷所有していた上に所有したことがないからって差別主義者じゃないということにならないからね？？
こういう奴らでみんなやってたからしょうがないとか言う奴にジョン・アダムズを見ろって言いたい、一番わかりやすい。
後一番重要だと思うけど、奴隷たちから悪い意見を聞いたことがないからと言って奴隷を所有していた時点で悪なので何の言い訳にもならない。
I'm not saying I want the whole program to be about Polk's involvement with slavery but I will say that people calling in to rationalize slavery as an justifiable institution at the time is just plain wrong. I can understand why so few 19th century people questioned it (it was an enduring and prominent institution that permeated American culture) but that does nothing in the way of justifying it. It was a horrific moral blind-spot of that day. Even people in that context knew it was wrong and wrote thoroughly on it. Anyway, I found myself sick to my stomach listening to these callers try to side-step the topic as a distraction to the conversation rather than a major fault within Polk's legacy and a prominent influence on the 19th century psyche.