Forever Free: An Evening with Prof. James McPherson & Prof. Allen Guelzo - Gettysburg College
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 09. 2012
- Forever Free: An Evening with Professor Allen Guelzo and Princeton University Professor Emeritus James McPherson.
A conversation between Dr. Guelzo and Dr. McPherson. This event was moderated by Gettysburg Civil War Institute Director and Professor, Peter Carmichael. Friday, September 21, 2012
Any discussion including Allen Guelzo is always well worth hearing.
I love the way that Professor Allen Guelzo speaks. He has a fantastic way with words and is able to express his intelligence in an incredibly effective manner. I have enjoyed this video very much, and would like to thank you for presenting it for the public on youtube.
I basically just stumbled upon this video and have to say I completely agree with you. The depth of Professor Guelzo's knowledge of the Civil War is amazing to behold. The way he expresses that knowledge is so easy to listen to and to understand. I know that now, I must read some of his books. I've been a fan of James McPherson's writings since first reading "Battle Cry of Freedom" in the early 90's, but the speaking of Professor Guelzo is simply a joy to behold.
Finding Quelzo is such a treat. Give him an A for delivery. One problem though he looks and sounds like Captain Charles Winchester on Mash....but thats another wonderful charachter
If only he’d read his own audiobooks!
Both men brilliant, especially McPherson, who has written most of his work on a 70's IBM Selectric, the old fashioned way, and who keeps reference books stacked floor to ceiling in a nearby closet. He doesn't waste a word, either writing or talking. These scholars are national treasures.
Both wonderful, insightful scholars.
Absolutely brilliant. I must admit that being italian I admire the interest of the americans in their history. We don't have anything like this in Italy.
chinacat - What about Garibaldi?
With your 2 millenia of history, that's a crying shame. Old Rome, the Papacy, barbarian invasions and midaeval history, the Renaissance, the 19th C unification, WWI, the Fascist era and WWII, post-war struggles and current events... wow, so much to learn.
Sadly I have to agree, in Italy history is such a divisive issue whether we discuss our wars of independance or the fascist era or even our ancient past - I truly admire the passion Americans have towards their history, I love reenactors and most of all I prize the interest that general audiences take into learning and debating the past
I respectfully disagree with you. Italians know all about their history. We have the richest history in the world. (Next to our Greek brothers ad sisters)
An absolutely fantastic and very moving summary at the end by Prof Guelzo of why the civil war was fought.
Thank you
Actually, it was pure nonsense and it shows how prone even educated Americans are to their own myth making. For one, the United States was not the only functioning democracy in the world. What do you think was happening in Great Britain in 1850s? Even France in the 1860s could be consider constitutional monarchy.
On the question, Would slavery have died out on its own? These two brilliant authors/professors touched on (though didn’t explicate) a key point: the CW was about the EXPANSION of slavery. Allow the secessionist slavers their way and American slavery would have expanded shore to shore and south into an expanded slavaracy
quite wrong. Only the new territories were in play for slavery. In the the republican north slavery was long settled.
@@jamescurran7059 The 1850 fugitive slave law criminalized interference with slave catchers in the entire nation. That’s what led to Civil War as it became untenable to live anywhere in the US as an opponent of slavery
@@scottamichie I think you can add the Dred Scott decision’s conclusions and how the pro-slavery legislators might have attempted to increase slavery in any area of the country - a thought while we are speculating.
@@jamescurran7059 false statement.
Yes, given the South's slavery-driven wealth and political power, slave "property" would have become admitted everywhere westward, making the U.S. a slave nation from sea to sea. Likely leading eventually to a different armed civil conflict.
Frazier Crane knows History!
the gettysburg address is a masterpiece
The discussions about slavery were much more interesting than the part about Gettysburg.
the slave story from kentucky was very interesting-Lincoln showed great panache and adroitness in dealing with MacCelland but MacClelland was on sinking sand with his stand on abolition-christian? not in my bible-many southerners had great guilt secretly over slavery. The emancipation proclamation was a politically brave and courageous act that showed true leadership by lincoln -the scenes of lincoln being recognised as their liberator in the streets of richmond at wars end by liberated slaves are so incredibly powerful and proof of his leadership.The fact that so many liberated slaves rallied to the colours of the union army is proof of that!
Well done.
Liberty and Union.
One and inseparable.
Now and Forever !
In this execrable polarizing times, it is good to remember that Liberty and Union are values that go together.
There simply is no Liberty without UNION.
Peace.
The guest professors were fantastic but the host was annoying and loved to hear himself speak, forgetting that nobody cares what he thinks! Just ask the questions!!!!
Dr Carmichael is no Civil War slouch and has a voice in any Civil War discussion. His personality does balance his 2 elders. I love all three and found this a wonderful discussion.
The moderator is a dullard. The professor eloquently spells out what a treasonous threat was McClellan and the ridiculous moderator responds as if he wasn’t even listening, blasting (pointlessly) Lincoln!
One wonders: How, in only about a hundred years, did we as a nation go from slavery and the impossibility of citizenship for blacks (Dred Scott decision, 1857) to totally repudiating racial segregation (Brown v. Board of Education, 1964)? And then electing a black President a mere 44 years later?
Got there [federally at least] by fighting for it.
There are several battles that took place to change the face of the battle in favor of the Union: Gettysburg, Vicksburg and also when Sherman took Atlanta. The reason for these three major turning points is because when the South lost each of these battles the Union was able to strengthen its constriction on the South and also it caused the war to be a matter of time before the South lost. The Union was superior in manpower and also in industry which also played a role in the Civil War.
Of course every Union victory contributed, but Atlanta insured Lincoln's reelection, and THAT guaranteed Union victory more than anything else.
In a way much of the fighting in the West was unnecessary. After The Federals took New Orleans, the Mississippi was of not much use to the Confederates. The taking of the remaining port cities would have limited supplies for the South’s armies. and efforts could then have focused on the defeat of the Army in Northern Virginia. With Virginia gone much of the South’s manufacturing capacity would have disappeared. The South would have eventually have had to sue for peace.
How else did Union troops expect southern civilians to receive them as part an invading army except to support those defending them? They same way that New Englanders received the Red Coats who occupied Boston and closed its port after the Tea Party.
Dr Guelzo is Frasier Crane in real life
Another fine worship service in the Church of Lincoln. I am edified, uplifted and baptized in the glory of Lincoln. Let us pray.
he certainly does seem to have been a higher species in many ways!
And yet there was no Lincoln cult at the time. He never claimed deity, and he received criticism from all sides. Imagine if he had not been there, for that brief, critical period.
Adams County Mississippi, referenced by Allen Guelzo for its wealth, in the 1860 census, had a slave population over the70%.
Could slavery, aka King Cotton, expand? By the 1850s, as well as cotton was doing, the crops that made up the Ag Sector of our economy, cotton was definitely Number One but wheat and corn combined were now equal to cotton production; and when it came to livestock as part of the Ag Sector it was as large as the crops sector. By the late 19th Century King Cotton would no longer be the Number One crop, and by WWI the South was becoming more mechanized in agriculture and in less need for human labor.
Also, Texas was the last state to come in to the Union as a slave-holder state, and that was in 1845. Five more states would come into the Union between Texas and the start of the Civil War and none of them came in as slave-holder states even though some had slaves (like California). So where would your next slave-holder state be?...Colorado, New Mexico?, Arizona? Just because a state had slaves doesn't mean the slave-holder interests predominated.
Also, looking backward from the late 19th Century not knowing what was to happen if you are in 1860 -- the Industrial Revolution taking shape in America during the whole 19th Century was transforming from labor intensive production (like cotton and the factories dependent on cotton) in the beginning of the 19th Century to capital intensive industries and mining operations like coal and steel production after the 1870s and especially after 1880.
nah the south was always going to lose-as shelby foote said -the north fought the war with one hand behind its back-gettysburg AND VICKSBURG broke the back of the resistance -from there it was an attritional grind down. Yes lincoln kept the political balance very well but the soldiers were not questioning the war or unity, they were just demoralised in the east because of bad generalship.Lincoln was a genius who provided direction and leadership-who drove the attack in the valley of the mississippi-dividing the confederacy in two. It was about economics and that economy was driven by slavery.
Lincoln 's. long, wise wait to free slaves until it was politically feasible reminds me of FDR's long, wise wait to enter WWII until it was politically feasible.
I would have enjoyed the discussion more if there had been a bit more distance between the two speakers. It was really only one perspective share between two people. Guelzo summary at the end was pure historical nonsense and it shows how prone even educated Americans are to their own myth making. For one, the United States was not the only functioning democracy in the world. What do you think was happening in Great Britain in 1850s? Even France in the 1860s could be consider a constitutional monarchy.
Lincoln said in a letter to Horace Greeley “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” That Lincoln's own point of view evolved over the duration of the war is fine but the idea that Union and Emancipation were intricately linked from the beginning is absurd.
The thesis of this discussion as stated in the beginning, that Gettysburg was viewed as the turning point in the war is absolutely false. The Lincoln gov't didn't see it as such for there were expecting to lose the 1864 elections, they had dropped the name Republican from their party name and even named a southern supporter Andrew Johnson to the ticket. Well into 64 this was a false idea that no believed at the time. It was not until the reelection of Lincoln and the capture of Savanah did the north believe that they would finally win the war. Until then Gettysburg was just another battle along the way. Vicksburg had more to do with turning the tide than did Gettysburg. Listen to what Pro Gary Gallagher (UVA) has to say on this subject.
He actually thinks the taking of New Orleans in 1862 was most important, if I've understood him correctly.
antares4s - The moderator was referring to the popular view today that Gettysburg was the turning point, not what was thought at the time.
@@GH-oi2jf Exactly. Dr. Gallagher often speaks of "memory vs history" and especially "credits" Shaara, Burns and Maxwell with enforcing the view of Gettysburg as the big turning point (and Chamberlain as the savior of the Union/United States) despite what contemporaries might have thought.
The drums at Champion Hill sounded the defeat of the Confederacy.
The failure to take Richmond in June, 1861 proved to be turning point. Johnston and Davis did not work well together, and if Johnston had not been badly wounded at Seven Pines, the city would probably have not survived a Siege. Lee drove away the Federal forces with an aggressiveness that McClellan could not counter. There after the Federals had to ratchet up their efforts to counter the strengthened forces of the Army of Norther Virginia. This meant an undermining of slavery.
The guy on the left talks too much
You forgot best marketed individual of hair gel, and designer socks. WTF Are your guest that Egotistical?? Lost me after that intro..
Peter Carmichael was the weak link. His performance was disappointing.
Ridiculous and stupid, so biased, not learned at all
Allen Marples You’re an Idiot. Which doesn’t help.
I am so glad you're such an expert. Where do you teach and how many books have you written? So easy to be a critic particularly when you're opinion comes from ignorance.
Both are respected professors in this field plus being authors of many books. They deserve respect
Kimberleyanne Demong - And, so easy without including anything of substance in the criticism.
Showing my bias here but let me speculate. You're southern born and bred, perhaps have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy and believe that the war was about states rights and taxation and had nothing to do with slavery.
Is it just me, or does McClelland remind anyone else of Herbert Sobel, Frank Burns, & Benedict Arnold? Maybe 80% Sobel, 10% Burns(“Frank Burns eats worms”🤡), and 10% Arnold….😱🫣🤣😆😂🤡