Author Talk with Heather Cox Richardson on How the South Won the Civil War 

That’s really next level humor, thank you! Best wishes with your return to sanity. Kindly, Dennis

Hey, I'm in my 70's, and it's never too late.

Nice to see a Christian that does not like Trump. 😊

Just seeing this now but still so relevant

She's a national treasure IMHO.

@@nacarreira777 I am no k

Thank you! Agreed. Love this comment!

People are too easily swayed by media and politicians lies. Look what happened in the UK with Brexit. People voted (albeit by a small margin) on something on which they were little informed as well as being told outright lies by the Tories (350m a week would be redirected to the NHS - a lie pulled out of thin air and of course, the opposite happened, they are dismantling the NHS.

@@karenhartman9774 Karen,Thank you for agreeing.I just keep hearing from politicians that they have the best interests of the people and are always a disappointment.Why can’t we have our own best interests in a solid vote on what the majority of citizens choose to vote for?This waste of time in Congress can be made more efficient and effective if we decide the changes we need....not the so called representatives.

Actually, just five out of nine Supreme Court justices might be required. Switzerland probably is the country most famous for referendums and might be the best (but applicable?) case study to look at.

Well it's just been decided by much less than that

Her predictions were the complete opposite of true. Many of them completely unverifiable or unfalsifiable. What reality do you live in? And overall things have been worse since..... lol

@@jessereichbach588 Lmao

Most of the young people you know follow trends and have low self-esteem issues thinking the opinions of Europeans matter. Be honest with yourself.

Oh, did you go into the voting booth and make sure? Let's be very clear, nobody will EVER truly know who somebody else voted for, it's a fed crime to even try to find out, and anybody can SAY anything they want.

@@reesetorwad8346 republicans all say "the democrats are cheating" but the truth is its the Republicans that are cheating with things like gerrymandering and closing polling stations in the cities on election day. In the last 20 years democrats have won the popular vote every year but for some reason republicans keep winning. Can you please explain this. Please 🙏

@@reesetorwad8346 - Let's be very clear, as you suggest. People are free to divulge the way they vote at any time and they very often do so. Could they lie ? yes. Do more than a tiny percentage lie ? I really doubt it. Is Reese super salty because he is probably an old, white, Trumpanzee who wants to turn back the clock ? Oh yes.

@@englishsteve1465 lmao, You poor thing, you're not even on the right planet. How could you possibly be that wrong? What's worse is that even if you'd been correct, your statement would still be completely, utterly irrelevant. Now, you tell me: Am I trying to win you over? Better yet, stfu until you learn how to read. Edit: Btw, "Trumpettes" is objectively better. And why insult chimps?

The reason is that those older writers already supported their arguments with evidence in previous books. But it is counterproductive to attempt to distil one's ideas before one has even proven one's ideas as evidentially valid

Especially for his time

What an avalanche of racist, Marxist garbage.

Of course, in this talk here, HCR specifically points out that Bill Buckley was one of the signs when things were going wrong in America.

Trump rallies on full WWF display.

Yeah, she's on the Red Patrol and Communist-apologist tour. If it is a VERY short book, it may not be enough for bird-cage liner.

You know you’re standing on the truth when the bots and culted ones jump on your comments!

@@karenhartman9774 My computer (or RU-vid, or software connected with the site) won't even let me see the threads preceding your comment. If you're saying I'm a bot or cultist, I have no comment, but I think you're referring to Prof. Richardson and fellow travelers. She and they are post-Modern, which means truth never figures in anything. Tongue in left cheek she implies the South "won", then proceeds to tell more Marxist whoppers that her flack brigade laps up greedily. My bird prefers the funny papers to Ms. Richardson's cr*p.

​@@karenhartman9774 isn't that the truth. The sad truth.

@@karenhartman9774 Especially when they trot out the C word.

and how do you prevent ballot box stuffing? free, fair, and VALID VERIFYABLE VOTING is what is required.

Please, be aware of her biases. She is a propagandist. Not a historian. (although you may argue all historians are propagandist). Her writings are not made with rigor but emotional appeals. Please please double check her claims. They are not true, they are merely emotional potent oversimplifications (per Chomsky).

@@IhateCCP still waiting for your point by point, annotated retort.

@@HabAnagarek Her logical fallacies are numerous. I will give you one example. She does not understand what 'liberal' or liberalism mean. She uses that term without rigor and in fact is describing neoliberalism. She try to ascribe liberal ideology onto neoliberals. This is not only a logical fallacy but just outright wrong. She also touched on Communism. She does not understand Communism. She has an extremely pretentious understanding of Communism.

@@IhateCCP You say a lot but explain nothing. Empty words.

@@IhateCCP what the fuck are you talking about

More bad people are warming up in the bullpen

Nah, they're aware. The constituents are largely fools but the politicians know exactly what they're doing.

Some listen to fox all day, and that’s the info they rely on.

It's not true though. Not materially. Just rhetorical. They more we made strides socially there was a reaction it.

@@marcusdavis5599 Not sure which aspect of Heather's assertion you're disputing. The 'reaction' to it was in the general populace or in the oligarchy who foisted the view on the populace?

Probably as advanced as Eastern Germany was compared to West Germany.

@Alex Wolf I use conservative as an encompassing term to define the right. I would argue they have never really wanted to assimilate into the 'United' State. Right from the start the south insisted on States rights. Instead of one set of laws good enough for the whole country. In theory they wanted to keep slavery. In practice we can't be united with each state going separate ways depending on who wins office.

@Alex Wolf If that helps you sleep at night.. Historians in general disagree. But that doesn't really matter does it?

@Alex Wolf I would say the Confederacy fits every definition of " conservative ". Small government, state's rights, to such an extent that it hampered their ability to wage an effective war. Jefferson Davis had to fight for a greater degree of integration and cooperation between the states, some of whose governors considered him a tyrant. Deeply religious, rooted in tradition and the maintaining of a status quo rooted in landed aristocracy and of course, the retention of chattel slavery. Even after the war, and the end of reconstruction and the military occupation of the south,, the states which composed the Confederacy sought to continue many of the same practices under different names. Share cropping, prisoner leasing, black codes, Jim Crow... The Confederacy was a conservative, white supremacist, separatist movement, largely orchestrated by the wealthy land owners.

@Alex Wolf "The Confederacy was not conservative" and gonna have to stop you right there, because that is categorically false. They were, by today's political standards, Conservative. The party names swapped, but the values, ideologies, political, and social tenets have largely remained the same. Any group of humans who claim to be for freedom, equality, and justice who also think it's their right to keep other humans as property, and because they see them as less than human or even inhuman, aim to prevent them from exercising "God given" rights or outright claim they have no rights, are not a rational group of people. I don't even know if calling Southern Americans, both pre and post-civil war Conservative or Liberal makes a difference. It was entitled, self-anointed rich, white land owners too lazy to do the work themselves, and too cheap to pay anyone a decent wage to do the work because that would eat into their bottom line. Sound familiar? Its a lot like corporate America today.

I alone can fix it.

@@Zimmy907 HAHAH!!

I'll take Jessy over PeRot any day of the week!!

You make no sense.

I think this fraud stuff is saying that we don't believe our Secretary's of State and the DOJ. To me that is scary,I believe them. We didn't know about the sealed boxes and certifications until now. If they are doing their job,and it appears that they are and have been. Than why is anybody questioning of the election officials. This is going down a chance crazy road to nowhere.

@@kennethbailey6634 if you can get enough people to repeat the lie . The lie becomes real . That is their game plan . And it works.

What about mail-in ballots? Plenty of shenanigans there.

@@jennymisteqq5399 According to who?

I'm reading DuBois's Black Reconstruction (a history of the Civil War's end and the several decades thereafter, with lots of detail on the black population's role, views, and actions/reactions) ... and I'd guess Heather R. found this detailed account VERY influential in her work. As well she should have -- I have learned TONS of stuff from DuBois that seldom even got hinted at in any U.S. history course in college.

@@markabbott3936 Community College?🤔 Because it wasn't Yale!

how come no one was charged with the crime of "insurrection" ?

Most countries aren´t democracies, but republics. And for a republican, democracy is the same as communism to a Nazi: The eternal enemy... Democracy is the nest evolutionary step after the republic, and thus, the greatest threat for any republican. Imho the republic stands much, much nearer to oligarchy, than the republic stands to democracy. Or, in the worst case (since the Romans were the ones to have invented it, so, what can you expect?): Republic is just a cover name for oligarchy.

Yes, of course you're correct. I totally agree. We are Not a Democracy. For the first roughly 90 years of our country neither blacks nor women could vote. For an additional 50 more years before women could vote. What about voter suppression have to do with Democracy? Nothing whatsoever. What does Gerrymandering have to do with Democracy? Absolutely Nothing Whatsoever. And of course, as you mentioned two Senators from each state regardless of population has Nothing Whatsoever to do with Democracy. Proof positive that the U.S. is of course Not a Democracy. Case Closed !! The only True Democracy is one where you have a one person one vote popular vote tally to determine the winner.

@@milycome In modern societies, it seems to be the best. But don´t loose the focus on the best (and most unrealistic) solution: People are educated enough, to argue logically and civilised. One, really anyone, makes a proposition, and by voting, the least viable propositions are excluded. Then a new discussion-round begins, and voting follows, till one single proposition is left. That´s how it was done in ancient Greece, and the reason they viewed Romans as barbarians, even after they got conquered by them. We don´t need a private company like Google spying on us, in order to feel the pulse of the nation, and provide the products that will make us happy! Not if we decide, that we can make it (even much better) by ourselves. In ancient times, they would vote once every day, so, it´s impossible today???

@@klausbrinck2137 Yes, having a direct democracy where virtually every issue is voted upon weekly or even daily is more doable today then ever before due to technology. Everyone 18 years of age or older gets to vote on all issues from their computer or smartphone. The system would be set up in a super secure fashion totally immune to being hacked or having votes changed. The security issues would have to be worked out first. Also, the laws or issues voted upon would have to be fully explained in detail and truthfully and accurately presented so there would be no room for inaccuracies, misunderstanding, or falsehoods in what it is that you're actually voting on.

@@milycome and yet, that obvious truth gets so easily buried by so many who wish to idealize us.

I want a to hear forum with you and Elisabeth Warren. Turn around the ship.

Some of us prefer the historically accurate story of who our forefathers actually were, and some prefer the mythology

Not certain the founders had the "hers" much in mind.

How would her reading of Calhoun (or not) have changed the material covered in this interview?

Yes, including the damned Warren Report "official narrative"...as well as the "9-11" junk report "official narrative" (with Arabs having "downed" the towers...when there is VERY little evidence for that).

@@456zounds good to be critical of those institutions conspiracy narratives. I would not dwell in them.

@@georgefurman4371 You seem to be missing the point. The Power Elite (the "Revisionists") pushes these NON "Conspiracy Theory" fake narratives. In fact, that term (as Mark Lane insisted LONG AGO) was essentially invented by federal agencies IMMENSELY eager to debunk the many critics of the (blatantly dishonest and politically motivated) Warren Report. The Kennedy assassination "Lone Nut Theory" ...and the "9-11" "The Arabs dunnit!" official narratives are PURE JUNK...and speak of plenty of "mischief" "behind the scenes."

@@456zounds I believe there is a conspiracy narrative. But the most important to give relevance is that off the economic class in power. The ones corrupting government in order to take government are the ones promoting those conspiracies to deflect from the struggle for democracy. And the ones that divide us and deflect from their responsibility in the way the economy is handled. The political right is the problem since they are invested in that campaign to obstruct all attempts at trying to give us a real democracy.

Her predictions were dead wrong.

@@marcusdavis5599 Sure. 👍🏽

I’m not threatened by her at all. It is the radical right which threatens me. Those racist, ignorant savages who push nationalism and old testament mentalities.

Threatened by what?

@@marcusdavis5599 1) She said Trump would lose. He lost. 2) She said if Trump doesn't get elected he will inflame his base into a scary level of division. I don't see anything where she is "wrong."

Democracy cannot survive in the presence of Capitalism.

@@TielhardSJ I so agree to both comments. Capitalism is heirachy. Screw non whites and poor.

@@TielhardSJ when you acknowledge that your aren’t capable of managing your own life successfully.

When will at least one marxist, communist or socialist start a company and pay their employees a comparable wage to what they, the owner, are making? Answer: NEVER. Never in a million years. Marxist are as ruthless as anyone when it comes to business. Everyone is a capitalist when it comes to their own possessions, assets and businesses. The day a socialist lives according to his/her own beliefs, then my ears are open to anything they have to say. Why is that that Christians are always challenged, and pressured to live as they teach, but marxists/socialist NEVER are?

@@jameseverett4976 Why are you telling lies to defend a point that nobody made?

Yes, but Fox does ONLY that. The Times reports a lot of news, and provides a variety of opinions in its op-eds.

Really? They hold elections for one day on a weekday, and limit poling locations in certain areas just to make it harder for certain people to vote. Districts are garrymandered to shit, and the electoral college disproportionately favors smaller states... but somehow THIS compromises our infallible "democracy"?

@@heroicskeleton1566 If the counting is compromised .... in any way whatsoever ... then everything else is compromised. Also, we Democrats are against voter-suppression of any kind.

If we want our votes to count we need to get rid of the Electoral College system. Hillary got 2,865,075 more votes than Trump but she lost because of our stupid voting system. That’s almost 3 million voters whose votes were essentially erased. Gore lost to Bush in the same way. It’s an out dated system that we no longer need.