It was a pretty decent lecture. I would say that I do disagree with some things but overall he was treated pretty fairly. The Marx comparison isn't really applicable. Marx got his class warfare ideas not from people like Calhoun but people like Voltaire. As much as we all disagree with Calhoun on slavery, we can at least look at his ideas of economics and nullification and secession and debate those. I think that Calhoun made an excellent point for his reasoning in the last speech he gave to Congress when he said that a union by definition is voluntary and if we are not a voluntary union then we are a set of subjugated states subservient to the Federal government. But being that we are a union then that it has to be voluntary. That is a point that is very legitimate and can be debated. But most time when I mention anything like that people are like he was pro slavery so noting he said was acceptable. It shuts down the discussion before it even begins.
Yeah, so basically nothing he said about Calhoun has made me think of him in any better light. While I agree that it's important to truly understand the people and history that's brought us to where we are... It does us no service to pretend that Calhoun and his ilk are/were responsible for anything positive today. Yes, Calhoun is important. He's an important reminder that educated people can reach high office and be placed in positions of great influence and essentially work against all progress we have today. People may defend Calhoun's name, but they won't/can't defend his ideas. Speaking of Calhoun's historical significance does not enoble him. He was what he was; yes he should be studied and recognized for what he actually was, little of it was good.
@@aksiegel The problem that I have with Rs and Ds when they talk about people like John C. Calhoun is that they use racists like Calhoun to bash the South as a whole and exalt the North as a whole. They overlook the North's participation in racist institutions and racist laws and they solely blame the South for having racist views when their views were common in the North and the South. For instance, John C. Calhoun's view that slavery was a positive good was not taught to him in the South but by his professors at Yale. Yet his view is presented as something he just dreamed up out of thin air and that it caused the Civil War. The Northern participation of that view of his is totally erased from history. I am not excusing his racist views. I am just saying that we should ask ourselves why this is. Every racist even in American history was participated in by the North as well as the South. The KKK was resurrected in the North, Indiana to be precise, in the 20th century not the South. Jim Crow was a Northern invention not a Southern one. Yes the South practiced it but it was a totally Northern invention that originated in NY and the first state to use it as law was CT. And while we all know about the segregated South of the 50s and 60s, the North was just as segregated. Their schools were segregated and when bussing became a thing then Boston rioted in 1972 over black kids attending their schools. I do not deny the South's participation in all of those things. But it is wrong to ask why the government run education system only teaches one side of the story and it so happens to be the side that makes the South look bad? It couldn't be because the South has always been the strongest political opponent of a strong central authority could it? No. That would be a crazy conspiracy.
Calhoun's final speech in 1850 was pro-slavery laundry list. It was full of demands for concessions to slavery in order to keep it alive. It even contained a bitter attack on the Ordnance of 1787 inspired by Thomas Jefferson, because that restricted slavery in the Northwest Territory. Even the slave-owning Thomas Jefferson wasn't pro-slavery enough for Calhoun. It's really no wonder no one cares what else he had to say about other things. If I gave a speech about how wonderful genocide is, would you put any stock in anything else I said? Also, do appeals to a "voluntary Union" really hold water when your goal is to keep 30% of your population enslaved forever? When your goal is to expand slavery to places that have never experienced it before and don't want it?
@@thefreeman8791 The issue at hand isn't racism, it's slavery. Yes both the North and South had plenty of racists, in some cases the North may have had more. But only the South was so dedicated to preserving slavery that they were willing to fight a war to hold on to it. The overwhelming majority of Northerners hated slavery and wanted to end it regardless of their thoughts on blacks. Lincoln is a prime example. Sure he had racist views, but whatever he thought of blacks, he still felt it was wrong to enslave them, and thus was elected President to put slavery "in course of ultimate extinction", which is why the rebels seceded and started the Civil war. It's also dubious to claim the South has "always been the strongest political opponent of a strong central authority." It certainly wasn't the case in the 19th century. The notion that the South opposed a strong central authority before or during the civil war is a total myth. What they really wanted was a strong central authority to protect slavery from anti-slavery laws in the states. The trend started in the 1842 case "Prigg v Pennsylvania", in which the Supreme Court ruled that private slave catchers had the right to kidnap blacks in free states, without any regard for state laws (so much for states rights!) One silver lining of "Prigg" was that SCOTUS also ruled that state authorities did not have to enforce federal fugitive slave laws. But in blatant defiance of this ruling, Southern politicians were able to secure passage of the 1850 fugitive slave act, which forced state authorities and even private citizens to help capture and detain fugitive slaves. The 1850 fugitive slave act was probably the largest expansion of federal power over the states in US history at the time, and was done entirely to appease the South. In fact, from 1850-1860, almost every federal law and Supreme Court ruling was in favor of the South. The Antebellum South didn't want a smaller federal government, they wanted a pro-slavery one.
Always remember, the primary objective of the CSA was to create new nation based on the institution of chattel slavery and to continue this institution in perpetuity.
And Wilmot with many other governmental representatives on both sides of the aisle wanted no blacks, either free or enslaved, in the newly acquired western regions of America. The so called free territories. Whites only.
John Calhoun and Henry Clay in 1829 had hundreds of slaves, as young as 10 years old, in the Georgia gold mines. The Brindelton Mine Lumpkin county. Some of the gold is put in the Federal Reserve. There were many more mines worked around there by many of Henry Clays slaves. As told by his personal slave/body servant/jockey/blacksmith. I imagine this is where Clay gets his funds for presidential campaign and his race horses.
Yeah, so basically nothing he said about Calhoun has made me think of him in any better light. While I agree that it's important to truly understand the people and history that's brought us to where we are... It does us no service to pretend that Calhoun and his ilk are/were responsible for anything positive today. Yes, Calhoun is important. He's an important reminder that educated people can reach high office and be placed in positions of great influence and essentially work against all progress we have today. People may defend Calhoun's name, but they won't/can't defend his ideas. Speaking of Calhoun's historical significance does not enoble him. He was what he was; yes he should be studied and recognized for what he actually was, little of it was good.
I am sure that for the enslaved, there would have been no need for nuance in considering Calhoun’s legacy. For generations of people, they had no opportunity for self determination. Cruelty, poverty, total lack of freedom and a shortened life span was their lot.
Buchanan was a Noble prize winner, not an obscure economist. I really do not care one way or another for any of these people. I do not think there is connection much between Calhoun and Buchanan. Boring,
@PlasmaDawn Oh so like how the guy who worked at Marvel, Perlmutter, recasted Rhodey as Don Cheadle. This means that Perlmutter was racist like Calhoun. It all makes sense now thank you man
@Florida Cracker it wasn’t so much yankee transplants. The group that led the protests was led by a local kid. They can’t go after the confederate monuments because there’s a state law that protects them, so Calhoun was the only option they had where there would be any sort of success through protest alone.
@@timmcgrawsmustache4343 it is what it is, I get why people didn’t like it. Charleston isn’t what it use to be, the change is good in some ways, and sad in others.
I understand the need to be unbiased in this lecture, but I will say that I hold no such need. My mother always told me that the word hate is to strong of a word to use lighty, and I agree with her. But in this moment I release my holding thats I absolutely hate John C Calhoun. I hate this man as a person, a figure, a politician, and most importantly a vice president. I hate Calhoun not just because he was a racist slaver but because he held his state loyalty over his country loyalty. His role as John Quincy Adams Vice President is less known to me as his role and relationship as Andrew Jackson's. Jackson's almost pure and extreme hatred of Calhoun makes it almost hard not to hate him as a Jackson fan. It's his different reason where he disagreed with almost the entire rest of the US by wanting to succeed from the union before any other major players did, and he was so bitter about it that he fought for it on his death bed. And along with this he yelled and fought with Jackson for so long about it that the hated each other so badly that Jackson wanted to killed him and Calhoun actually left Jackson's presidency. He was a bitter man who stood behind him choices no matter how terrible and horrid they are, and I didn't even touch his believe on slavery. i hate this man and I want everyone to do so along with me
I hope that it may make you feel a little better knowing that I, a blood relative of this man, do not have any respect for his worldview, and am in fact an advocate for a one world government and often roll my eyes about those touting the importance of "state's laws" because they do it just to be able to practice their bigotry under the protection of politicians that sport the same bigoted worldviews. Thank the bejeezus that the South did not win.
Thomas Jefferson held the states to be sovereign, as evidenced with his opinion on the New England states attempt to secede in the early 19th century. Do you hate him also? While you apparently hate Calhoun for reasons other than slavery, you do list it as one of the reasons for your hatred of the man. So, do you hate the modern day slavers in Africa who have shackled seven million people against their will as well? Shouldn't you start an abolitionist society to get them freed post haste?
I appreciate Dr. Elder is uncomfortable with tearing down statues of men like Calhoun. I'm surprised he doesn't talk about the 10th Amendment which is often used as a reason to justify the constitutionality of nullification. Dr. Elder doesn't adequately explain the relation between political economy and the federal slavery fight. In Calhoun's day, everyone understood that the federal government could not outlaw slavery in the states. The federal fight was about the territories. The Northern economy was a manufacturing one that wanted high tariffs for protection. Most Northerner politicians were anti-slavery because they did not want blacks competing with white workers who would move into the territories. If slavery was outlawed in a territory and it became a state, it would join the Northern bloc in voting to increase tariffs. The South was paying over 80% of the republic's tariff revenue when Lincoln was elected. The Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs. If Lincoln had let the South secede, the North wouldn't be able to compete economically with the South's low tariff. The South was an agrarian economy that relied heavily on exporting its goods which is why Southerners wanted free trade. It's why Calhoun was a free-trader (although, back when he was a nationalist, he supported a tariffs increase in 1816 to pander to the Northerners who agitated for secession). John F. Kennedy deeply admired Calhoun and was a reason why Kennedy favored free trade.
Funny I am a direct descended of his. John C Calhoun. I don’t think there is any redeeming qualities in the way that he was like in his life or anything like it. Terrible man. I am a couple greats granddaughter of his. His direct genes 🧬 run through my flesh and vanes. And I’m not saying anything about that man in a relationship with positivity in viewing his actions or anything like that he was pushing something that was wrong and Great Britain altogether already outlawed it around his time. So I’m not going to blow down to him. Because of what blood 🩸 he caused and suffering in his way. I am not a fan of his even with my connection and family ancestry. Doesn’t change my ideals and I am extremely against looking up to John C. Calhoun. Kinda like Adolph hitler. He must be viewed in the same lights. I am definitely Against John C. Calhoun. I know it’s 4 months since your post I hope 🤞 you look at my message.
![TEEDEE TADA - DIAMOND NARAKORN X LEGO LYKN [Special Dance Performance]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QgtZedFeumA/mqdefault.jpg)
Error at 12:08 in this video, he said 1933 when he likely meant 1733.
It was a pretty decent lecture. I would say that I do disagree with some things but overall he was treated pretty fairly. The Marx comparison isn't really applicable. Marx got his class warfare ideas not from people like Calhoun but people like Voltaire. As much as we all disagree with Calhoun on slavery, we can at least look at his ideas of economics and nullification and secession and debate those. I think that Calhoun made an excellent point for his reasoning in the last speech he gave to Congress when he said that a union by definition is voluntary and if we are not a voluntary union then we are a set of subjugated states subservient to the Federal government. But being that we are a union then that it has to be voluntary. That is a point that is very legitimate and can be debated. But most time when I mention anything like that people are like he was pro slavery so noting he said was acceptable. It shuts down the discussion before it even begins.
That's because most people you're talking to are stupid and/or intellectually dishonest.
Yeah, so basically nothing he said about Calhoun has made me think of him in any better light. While I agree that it's important to truly understand the people and history that's brought us to where we are... It does us no service to pretend that Calhoun and his ilk are/were responsible for anything positive today. Yes, Calhoun is important. He's an important reminder that educated people can reach high office and be placed in positions of great influence and essentially work against all progress we have today. People may defend Calhoun's name, but they won't/can't defend his ideas. Speaking of Calhoun's historical significance does not enoble him. He was what he was; yes he should be studied and recognized for what he actually was, little of it was good.
@@aksiegel The problem that I have with Rs and Ds when they talk about people like John C. Calhoun is that they use racists like Calhoun to bash the South as a whole and exalt the North as a whole. They overlook the North's participation in racist institutions and racist laws and they solely blame the South for having racist views when their views were common in the North and the South. For instance, John C. Calhoun's view that slavery was a positive good was not taught to him in the South but by his professors at Yale. Yet his view is presented as something he just dreamed up out of thin air and that it caused the Civil War. The Northern participation of that view of his is totally erased from history. I am not excusing his racist views. I am just saying that we should ask ourselves why this is. Every racist even in American history was participated in by the North as well as the South. The KKK was resurrected in the North, Indiana to be precise, in the 20th century not the South. Jim Crow was a Northern invention not a Southern one. Yes the South practiced it but it was a totally Northern invention that originated in NY and the first state to use it as law was CT. And while we all know about the segregated South of the 50s and 60s, the North was just as segregated. Their schools were segregated and when bussing became a thing then Boston rioted in 1972 over black kids attending their schools. I do not deny the South's participation in all of those things. But it is wrong to ask why the government run education system only teaches one side of the story and it so happens to be the side that makes the South look bad? It couldn't be because the South has always been the strongest political opponent of a strong central authority could it? No. That would be a crazy conspiracy.
Calhoun's final speech in 1850 was pro-slavery laundry list. It was full of demands for concessions to slavery in order to keep it alive. It even contained a bitter attack on the Ordnance of 1787 inspired by Thomas Jefferson, because that restricted slavery in the Northwest Territory. Even the slave-owning Thomas Jefferson wasn't pro-slavery enough for Calhoun. It's really no wonder no one cares what else he had to say about other things. If I gave a speech about how wonderful genocide is, would you put any stock in anything else I said?
Also, do appeals to a "voluntary Union" really hold water when your goal is to keep 30% of your population enslaved forever? When your goal is to expand slavery to places that have never experienced it before and don't want it?
@@thefreeman8791 The issue at hand isn't racism, it's slavery. Yes both the North and South had plenty of racists, in some cases the North may have had more. But only the South was so dedicated to preserving slavery that they were willing to fight a war to hold on to it. The overwhelming majority of Northerners hated slavery and wanted to end it regardless of their thoughts on blacks. Lincoln is a prime example. Sure he had racist views, but whatever he thought of blacks, he still felt it was wrong to enslave them, and thus was elected President to put slavery "in course of ultimate extinction", which is why the rebels seceded and started the Civil war.
It's also dubious to claim the South has "always been the strongest political opponent of a strong central authority." It certainly wasn't the case in the 19th century. The notion that the South opposed a strong central authority before or during the civil war is a total myth. What they really wanted was a strong central authority to protect slavery from anti-slavery laws in the states. The trend started in the 1842 case "Prigg v Pennsylvania", in which the Supreme Court ruled that private slave catchers had the right to kidnap blacks in free states, without any regard for state laws (so much for states rights!)
One silver lining of "Prigg" was that SCOTUS also ruled that state authorities did not have to enforce federal fugitive slave laws. But in blatant defiance of this ruling, Southern politicians were able to secure passage of the 1850 fugitive slave act, which forced state authorities and even private citizens to help capture and detain fugitive slaves. The 1850 fugitive slave act was probably the largest expansion of federal power over the states in US history at the time, and was done entirely to appease the South. In fact, from 1850-1860, almost every federal law and Supreme Court ruling was in favor of the South.
The Antebellum South didn't want a smaller federal government, they wanted a pro-slavery one.
I really enjoyed the lecture.
Always remember, the primary objective of the CSA was to create new nation based on the institution of chattel slavery and to continue this institution in perpetuity.
And Wilmot with many other governmental representatives on both sides of the aisle wanted no blacks, either free or enslaved, in the newly acquired western regions of America. The so called free territories. Whites only.
I’m researching Calhoun. Hope to get just the facts of his philosophy and why and where that was cultivated. In an unbiased fashion.
My mom's dad is 68, and John C. Calhoun died at 68
Really interesting
John Calhoun and Henry Clay in 1829 had hundreds of slaves, as young as 10 years old, in the Georgia gold mines. The Brindelton Mine Lumpkin county. Some of the gold is put in the Federal Reserve. There were many more mines worked around there by many of Henry Clays slaves. As told by his personal slave/body servant/jockey/blacksmith. I imagine this is where Clay gets his funds for presidential campaign and his race horses.
Interesting how some of the posts come from people who seem not to have listened to the documentary.
I bet you got ur google alert 🚨 yesterday about his statue
Yeah, so basically nothing he said about Calhoun has made me think of him in any better light. While I agree that it's important to truly understand the people and history that's brought us to where we are... It does us no service to pretend that Calhoun and his ilk are/were responsible for anything positive today. Yes, Calhoun is important. He's an important reminder that educated people can reach high office and be placed in positions of great influence and essentially work against all progress we have today. People may defend Calhoun's name, but they won't/can't defend his ideas. Speaking of Calhoun's historical significance does not enoble him. He was what he was; yes he should be studied and recognized for what he actually was, little of it was good.
I am sure that for the enslaved, there would have been no need for nuance in considering Calhoun’s legacy. For generations of people, they had no opportunity for self determination. Cruelty, poverty, total lack of freedom and a shortened life span was their lot.
I am his direct descended and I totally agree with your above statement
Buchanan was a Noble prize winner, not an obscure economist. I really do not care one way or another for any of these people. I do not think there is connection much between Calhoun and Buchanan. Boring,
What this gotta do with Iron Man recasting?
@PlasmaDawn Oh so like how the guy who worked at Marvel, Perlmutter, recasted Rhodey as Don Cheadle. This means that Perlmutter was racist like Calhoun. It all makes sense now thank you man
They just took the Calhoun statue down in the middle of the night in Charleston.
@Florida Cracker it wasn’t so much yankee transplants. The group that led the protests was led by a local kid. They can’t go after the confederate monuments because there’s a state law that protects them, so Calhoun was the only option they had where there would be any sort of success through protest alone.
@@lolz-f6c what s shame
@@timmcgrawsmustache4343 it is what it is, I get why people didn’t like it. Charleston isn’t what it use to be, the change is good in some ways, and sad in others.
interesting lecture; according to Amazon his book is suppossed to come out 16/2/2021
This was very accurate and not one sided at all.
I understand the need to be unbiased in this lecture, but I will say that I hold no such need. My mother always told me that the word hate is to strong of a word to use lighty, and I agree with her. But in this moment I release my holding thats I absolutely hate John C Calhoun. I hate this man as a person, a figure, a politician, and most importantly a vice president. I hate Calhoun not just because he was a racist slaver but because he held his state loyalty over his country loyalty. His role as John Quincy Adams Vice President is less known to me as his role and relationship as Andrew Jackson's. Jackson's almost pure and extreme hatred of Calhoun makes it almost hard not to hate him as a Jackson fan. It's his different reason where he disagreed with almost the entire rest of the US by wanting to succeed from the union before any other major players did, and he was so bitter about it that he fought for it on his death bed. And along with this he yelled and fought with Jackson for so long about it that the hated each other so badly that Jackson wanted to killed him and Calhoun actually left Jackson's presidency. He was a bitter man who stood behind him choices no matter how terrible and horrid they are, and I didn't even touch his believe on slavery. i hate this man and I want everyone to do so along with me
I hope that it may make you feel a little better knowing that I, a blood relative of this man, do not have any respect for his worldview, and am in fact an advocate for a one world government and often roll my eyes about those touting the importance of "state's laws" because they do it just to be able to practice their bigotry under the protection of politicians that sport the same bigoted worldviews. Thank the bejeezus that the South did not win.
Thomas Jefferson held the states to be sovereign, as evidenced with his opinion on the New England states attempt to secede in the early 19th century. Do you hate him also? While you apparently hate Calhoun for reasons other than slavery, you do list it as one of the reasons for your hatred of the man. So, do you hate the modern day slavers in Africa who have shackled seven million people against their will as well? Shouldn't you start an abolitionist society to get them freed post haste?
I appreciate Dr. Elder is uncomfortable with tearing down statues of men like Calhoun. I'm surprised he doesn't talk about the 10th Amendment which is often used as a reason to justify the constitutionality of nullification. Dr. Elder doesn't adequately explain the relation between political economy and the federal slavery fight. In Calhoun's day, everyone understood that the federal government could not outlaw slavery in the states. The federal fight was about the territories. The Northern economy was a manufacturing one that wanted high tariffs for protection. Most Northerner politicians were anti-slavery because they did not want blacks competing with white workers who would move into the territories. If slavery was outlawed in a territory and it became a state, it would join the Northern bloc in voting to increase tariffs. The South was paying over 80% of the republic's tariff revenue when Lincoln was elected. The Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs. If Lincoln had let the South secede, the North wouldn't be able to compete economically with the South's low tariff. The South was an agrarian economy that relied heavily on exporting its goods which is why Southerners wanted free trade. It's why Calhoun was a free-trader (although, back when he was a nationalist, he supported a tariffs increase in 1816 to pander to the Northerners who agitated for secession). John F. Kennedy deeply admired Calhoun and was a reason why Kennedy favored free trade.
Well said
Cause and affect comes from a simple mind. Your level of thinking is that of middle school.
Slave South agrarian feudalism. North commercial capitalism? 🤔
Funny I am a direct descended of his. John C Calhoun. I don’t think there is any redeeming qualities in the way that he was like in his life or anything like it. Terrible man. I am a couple greats granddaughter of his. His direct genes 🧬 run through my flesh and vanes. And I’m not saying anything about that man in a relationship with positivity in viewing his actions or anything like that he was pushing something that was wrong and Great Britain altogether already outlawed it around his time. So I’m not going to blow down to him. Because of what blood 🩸 he caused and suffering in his way. I am not a fan of his even with my connection and family ancestry. Doesn’t change my ideals and I am extremely against looking up to John C. Calhoun. Kinda like Adolph hitler. He must be viewed in the same lights. I am definitely Against John C. Calhoun. I know it’s 4 months since your post I hope 🤞 you look at my message.
no farms no food...
What simplicity
His very face shows the evil within him.