So one correction about the one comment that I made last hour that I said the reverse measurement was only a tool to understand the unitary transformation that would disentangle some complicated underlying code states. Actually it is not that, it's not just a tool, conceptual tool I mean. It is used in the medical surgery techniques. Whenever you wanna expand the code state to a larger patch to do some other logical operation then these reversible measurements are used. Although the main reversal measurement is only I think introduced in a recent paper of mine that the technique had existed for longer hours. Right, so this hour we're gonna talk about the circuit complexity of particular states. So what do you wanna say eventually? We wanna say that a particular state, some state is hard to generate. That's probably what large fraction of complexity theory is about. That, well not exactly because in the usual sense you wanna solve a class of problems. Here I'm asking more specific one. There is a target state, there's a specific starting point and you wanna count the number of gates that leads you to that target state. By counting argument this is usually hard. If you consider the Boolean function you have to transform and achieve certain Boolean function then the number of gates you have to implement to express that function should be very large. And similarly if you give me a generic hard random states then almost all of them must have a very large circuit complexity just by counting because the small number of gates can only express so many states. Here we wanna answer a more difficult question. The target is fixed. You are not allowed to consider any ensemble and I have to show that it is still hard. And for some scenario it is possible to show that such a transition is difficult. And to that end I'm gonna talk about the basic light cone and the corresponding Leib Robinson bounds and then I will apply those to the correlation function, code distance and I will last like 20 minutes or so I wanna introduce a new technique to where the previous one argument just fails but this one succeeds to show the hardness. Okay, let's start with the light cone. I'm pretty sure you already know but for the sake of completeness of this lectures let me just mention that. Yeah, so imagine a one dimensional line. So as before all I'm talking about is geometric local setting. So you have some qubits and my quantum circuits will have a diagram that would look like this. So there is a depth two quantum circuit consisting of two qubit gates. And I think of evolution of an observable say supported here in the Heisenberg picture you don't evolve the state, you evolve the operator by conjugation.  Then since they are all unitary, this unitary gate and that unitary gate are precisely inverse of each other so I can erase them. This one I don't know because there is observable I wanna probe and I wanna see the evolution of that. This one, they are gone. And once I erase that then I can erase further like this one I cannot erase because that's something is going on because of this gate but those on they are all gone. So what you're left with is the light cone for an observable emanating from the spatial location and the final width is depending proportional to the depth of the quantum circuit. So this part is called the light cone anything any argument that is based on this kind of picture is will be called a light cone argument. It appears here and there sometimes. Why is it physically meaningful? The world doesn't seem to be implementing any unitary gate that computer science think of as a discrete things. Unitary evolution comes from the solution of a Schrodinger equation whose solution would look like this. There's unitary I times time and the Hamiltonian there. Here the Hamiltonian is just nothing but the sum of small Hermitian operators. Here I say small but I really mean that each term is supported on some small number of qubits. So the diameter of the support of an operator is going to be some small number 01 independent of the system size. And you take the sum of those and we call it Hamiltonian. In the Heisenberg picture this is not the time evolution operator. In Heisenberg picture the proper thing is to think about this. The x is conjugated by these operators. And at the problem session you will show that this has an expansion in t. This is an, I call it nested commutator, sometimes called iterated commutator. Definition is, so you take a commutator with respect to the h once more as I increase the subscript k. And if the k equals zero then it's nothing but just x. So let's look at this expression a little bit more carefully. So here I give you a lemma. Time permitting I'm gonna explain some elements of the proof. Oh, let me explain the assumptions first. So I always consider Euclidean lattice where the geometric metric is as you think in the Euclidean lattice. And I also assume this that the support side is not too big. In addition I also assume that the norm the maximum eigenvalue of this permission local operator is bounded, just one. Physically these numbers that's the energy scale of the problem and I just normalize it. Then the lemma says that the thing I wanna say is that so there exists, so the formal statement is that there exists a constant c and zeta, some positive number, real number, such that as long as the Hamiltonian satisfies this norm condition and the support condition, then the nested commutator has norm bounded by the exponential function in k. There are some extra vector that might look interesting. There's a vector of a support in x which counts the number of sites in the support of x. And of course this is linear in x so there must be the norm on x too. So this is a lemma. But before we talk about any proof of this lemma, let's make a connection. The goal of the lemma is to make a connection between this discrete unitary circuit versus the Heisenberg Hamiltonian evolution. No, it's just a positive constant. Zeta maybe greater than one even. Doesn't matter. As long as it's a constant, it's fine. For our purpose I meant. So let's look at this expression. So the lemma says this much is bounded by an exponential function in k for everything fixed. This one is also exponential in k in magnitude. So everything is exponential. It's a geometrical series. And the convergence is guaranteed at least if t is smaller than say the zeta there in magnitude. But it's an interesting convergence because formally the norm of h is enormous. It's unbounded as it grows with the system size. It's proportional to the system size actually for any meaningful Hamiltonian. Yet this series is converging for sufficient small t for some, the region of convergence is non-zero. But what does that mean? If it is converging, then let's spell out the term by term. The first term k equals zero. Well this add is absent. Commutator at the zero, that's x. So that's x. Well that's yes. At the zero throw order in t, the x should come out. Next term will be, the first term is t i t commutator of x. But what is it? So suppose I have some two-dimensional grid that is my model for this d-dimensional Euclidean space and I have my x here. Hamiltonian terms will be distributed around here and there, right? And I take a commutator. X and commutator, well commutator between x and the far distant Hamiltonian term, that's zero. Because, so I don't have to worry about that. Then all that matters will be supported around x. How large is it? Right, this number. Let me call this r. So this distance is r. The next term here, the next term, will be t square i square two, I don't care really, and that's the second commutator. The second commutator means that, well, I take a first commutator and then I consider commutator with all the Hamiltonian terms. So the second term will be supported here. Well, now you see the pattern. So as you take the next and next term, three r and so on, but what does the lemma say? Lemma says that, well, I don't really sure because of the c, we're not really sure about the norm for a small k, but at some point, at some finite k, it must decrease exponentially. So in picture it's like you have a very weak term here, slightly stronger term here, even stronger term here, and the ultimate strong term at the center. So you have expressed the time evolved operator, this, into a sum of strictly local, strictly finitely supported operators, in an increasing diameter, and as you increase the diameter, the strength is weakening weakening. So if you were to probe that time evolved operator using some other observable, formally, I'm considering this, so let y be prober, the probe of how this operator is behaving. So the most straightforward is to take a commentator and look at at least the magnitude of that commentator. Well, from this picture, if y is supported far away, then only thing that can affect is the, not the first few terms, but the very latter terms. And what's the strength of that? It's going to be some, I don't know, some constant times k, where k is the coefficient appearing here. Well, in other words, it's the distance between the support of x and y divided by the range of interaction. And this form, this form is one of the, one of the Leib Robinson bounds for local Hamiltonians. Any questions? Well, it's a metric space. So diameter is, you give me, it's an optimization problem. You give me two points in that sub set and I make the measurement, you make a list of those and take the largest value. So the distance between the furthest apart, two points. Let's sketch the proof of this Leibman. Yeah, now you understand the proof of Leib Robinson bounds if you understood this. So, say the third commutator, maybe second is enough, but let me do it third. It's going to be sum over A, B, C dummy variables of HA, HB, HC, and X by linearity of the commutator, obvious. And when does it non-vanishing? When is it not vanishing? By the argument of, as we've done before, C must be very close to X, B must be very close to X. Now B must be close to the commutator and H must be close to the commutator and so on. So this motivates us to think of a graph based on the intersection of supports. So let's think about the intersection graph. One node corresponds to one term in the Hamiltonian, not the lattice site, just one term. And I declare there's an edge if there's support intersect. It's not a commutation, just a support intersection. Okay, so in the, if I have a say one dimensional easing model, CI, CI plus one, then the graph will be one term corresponds to one point. And since they are overlapping, I would have an edge and they are overlapping, I wouldn't have an edge and so on. So the intersection graph for this easing Hamiltonian, you just one dimensional line. And it's up to you to figure out exactly how the graph would be. But the important point is that this intersection graph on the Euclidean lattice will have a bounded degree. Simply because there is not much room for other too many terms to intersect. And let's look at the one term here. Since the commutator should not vanish. Okay, so for the sake of completeness, let me introduce an auxiliary vertex to this intersection graph corresponding to point X for operator. So the rule is same. If the support of X intersects with some support of other Hamiltonian term, then there's an edge, otherwise there's none. So C should be connected to edge, I'm sorry, X node. HB must be connected to this subgraph right here. And HA must be connected to this subgraph and so on. So if this commutator is non-vanishing, then these terms, these four points in my intersection graph must define a connected subgraph. That's a one mapping, I'm doing a combinatorics. So that's one mapping from this tuple of three Hamiltonian terms into a subgraph of intersection graph. What about the converse? If you give me a connected subgraph in this intersection graph, including the base node X, then I should be able to write down some commutator that is potentially non-vanishing. But the mapping from here to here is not one to one, simply because when I do this, I completely forget about the ordering. Right? So this map is at most k factorial to one. It's not that many. If there are collision, I mean, if the two terms are the same, then the number of nodes in this will be reduced, then you will have to weight it by some integer. So in general, you are defining a connected multi-set in this intersection graph. And the multiplicity will be absorbed by this k factorial factor, so I don't have to worry too much. All I have to do is to count the number of connected multi-set, including X, in this bounded degree graph. And that is purely combinatorial problem. And the solution is known that the number of such things is exponential in the number of nodes. Or more precisely, the sum of multiplicities. And that constant is precisely this zeta, okay? Now you know the one, I believe, Robertson bound on Euclidean lattice. You can generalize a little bit. So all we needed was that this intersection graph was a bounded degree. So I didn't really need the Euclidean space, but as long as the space has a, well, your Hamiltonian has a bounded degree intersection graph that these arguments will work through. Intersection graph is defined by the Hamiltonian itself. Yeah, so, okay, let me just repeat. I want to count the number of summands that are potentially non-zero. One summand has norm bounded by X, and each time you take a combinator, there's a factor of two increasing. So there will be a two to the k. Yeah, so norm of this combinator is at most two to the k, which is exponential, so we're good. Our goal is very generous. We only have to bound it by an exponential function in k. So one term being exponential in large, that's fine. But now the number of terms worries me. So I want to count that. But I don't want, I don't have to count the zero terms because they're zero. So for every potentially non-zero term, I associate a subgraph in the intersection graph. And I count the, I look at the correspondence and I count in the potential non-injectivity. And the final step is to count the multisets over this intersection graph. Okay, let's now apply this to the complexity. The first thing we are looking at is the correlation. You have seen this before, the correlation between two observables, between two regions. If they don't have to be the same type of operator, they can be arbitrary or thing. And the correlation is defined to be O A, O B for a given underlying state row, minus O A row, O B row. That's my correlation function. Let's calculate this for a product state. So my A is somewhere here, my B is somewhere there, and underlying state is a product state. Completely disentangled. This one, it will take just a trace of O A. Well, I'm sorry, not trace, just this. And here, all the same thing. Here, well, it's a tensor product state. So the trace will factorize also and the correlation function will vanish for any product state for separated regions. And now, let's evolve the state under a unitary. So we had our quantum circuit and I'm going to evolve my row under this quantum circuit. Well, instead of evolving row, let me just use the Heisenberg picture again. Then my evolution will take my correlation function, this into, yeah, this is my evolution. But if A and B are far separated, here's my A and here's my B, then their light cone cannot ever intersect. So this is still the product of two. Underline state is still product state and my O A conjugated by U and O B conjugated by U are still separated and by the calculation before the correlation function still vanishes. So if your state has non-trivial correlation for distant two observables, then immediately, we know that by this argument, to reach such a state from a product state that didn't have any correlation, it will take some deep circuit. How did? If you found the two observables that are, that is distance, say, L apart and your gates are, let's say, two qubit local, two qubit geometry local, then for the light cones to overlap, the depth must be proportional to this L. In that particular case, L of virtual or something. So knowing correlation is non-zero, immediately tells you about something about complexity. And distance between two observables gives you the lower bound on the depth. It does not, however, give you a lower bound on the number of gates, it only gives you the bound on the depth. It does give you some bound on the number of gates, of course, but I'm just saying that it's not necessarily the gates must be filled everywhere. The argument only tells you that depth must be somewhat large. And as an exercise, you are asked to find the two observables with a non-trivial correlation for the cast state. Now let's apply to this more code states because the theme is on the local codes. And this morning, Sandy was saying that Tori code is very highly entangled state. And it is highly entangled in the precise sense of this circuit complexity. Let's calculate the correlation function for the Tori code. Remember, Tori code is defined to be the ground state of a Hamiltonian whose terms are local and is commuting. I actually only need the condition that it is that mother Hamiltonian is commuting, nothing else. Oh, I'm gonna use another thing that we have checked. A disk-like region supports no logical operator. So, yeah, this is my region A. And suppose I have another region B. The lattice is everything like I just didn't draw the lattice. That this region is B and that is A. That's, yes. Capital R was the diameter of a one Hamiltonian term and it's uniformly bounded across all terms. So, our interest is in this expression with a condition that my underlying state absorbs the code space projector. That's what it means for the row to be in the ground state. Since my Hamiltonian is unfrustrated and commuting, the code space projector is nothing but the big pie, the product of Hamiltonian terms expressed as a projectors. So, specifically, Hj must be, well, minus Hj must be identity times the star term over two or identity plus the placket term over two. So, interpret, differently, row is invariant under multiplying J on the left and on the right. So, I could insert whatever local projector I want here without changing anything. If Hj is supported near here, far from B side, then this commutes, so I can move it over here. If H was supported near B, then I could send it over and place it there. So, whatever term you give me, I can always bring it near A. So, this piece, well, yeah, this expression becomes pi of OA, pi is the code space ground state projector, pi times OB, row, right? But we have seen this before. A is a small disk-like region, and this is proportional to some complex number depending on the observer itself and pi. But pi by cyclicity of trace will be absorbed to row, so this is going to be that complex number times trace of OB, row. But what is this? This is, I can calculate, well, let's take a trace of this expression. If I take a trace on both sides, by linearity, I can do this. I can absorb it here. Oh, I forgot the row there. The row is gone, the pi is gone. So, this is nothing but the expectation value of OA on the ground space. So, this side is precisely the second term when I was computing the correlation function. So, if A was a small region separated from the B in such a way that the distances between A and B is so large that no single Hamiltonian term could overlap both, then correlation function is always zero. Okay, so I just told you to show that the complexity suffices to find a non-trivial correlation function. Sorry? At the step where I was sending every local projector to A. Okay, so let's bring H here. H will commute with row by this property. So, it could be either side, they're a projector. So, if they are too close, then H could be sitting in between, and I'm not allowed to send it in between A and B. But if they're far apart, then either H is sufficiently close to A so that it trivially commutes with OB, or it is anyway close to A, so it's now sending over here. Okay, yeah, so the correlation function in this case doesn't help. We heard that toward code is non-trivial, but the correlation is exactly zero. Why is it non-trivial? Well, the correlation function is a sufficient condition, so it suffices to find some correlation function, and the proper correlation function we should look at is that of logical operators. On the toward code, there is encoded qubit, so I could measure the expectation of this logical operator on this strip, concretely, it'll be at the product of poly-Z is passing through this particular line and wraps around the torus once. And B is another such operator, but passing through some distant line, like here, okay? But I took this string operator and that string operator is nothing but the product of all plockets in between. If I multiply plockets here all together, then I will be left with the tensor factor leaving on those two lines, and I can do it indefinitely. So the product OA and OB, we know it has expectation value plus one on the ground state, that's the definition of ground state. But individually, it may not be. You could have chosen some underlying ground state in such a way that the logical operator along this line has expectation value of zero. In that case, yeah, this is one and both are zero, so the correlation function is non-zero. And how far can these two be? It's order of linear signs. So creation of that particular ground state whose expectation value of that string operator is zero will take that linear in the system size. But that's not so satisfactory. I mean, I wanna show the complexity of any ground state, not just this one. Can the complexity be go down some way depending on what logical operator you choose? Well, the answer is no. And the reasoning is that you could have chosen not just this one, but at the same time correlation between these two logical operators. And after some manipulation, you can show that either one of them must be large. There's a better argument. So let psi be one of the ground state arbitrary. Then I know that there is some other state that is orthogonal to it, which is also in the code space. And by definition of code distance, in order to distinguish the two put differently, if I wanted to transform this state to that state, then I have to enact some logical operator who supports covers more than L qubits. Now, if psi was generated by some small depth quantum circuit from a product state, then product state, there is always some qubit that is not the same as the given one. Like if every qubit is zero, and any orthogonal state must have some non-zero component somewhere. It may be superposition, but somewhere. So on the product state, there is an observable that will distinguish some any orthogonal state supported on a single site. Put differently, hypothetically, if I roll back these two states to the product state side using my hypothetical generating circuit, then the two states will be distinguished by a local operator, a strictly local operator. By the same, the like on argument, if I evolve it, then the observable depth was distinguished under two will get large as well. But in order to reach the size of order linear system size, the depth must be at least linear two. So I didn't have to specify a particular correlation function. It's essentially the same idea, but slightly more streamlined. Now, let me give you a puzzle. Oh, I only have 15 minutes. We, in the first hour, we show that on the sphere, you cannot have any logical qubit encoded. ToriCode is definable on the sphere, and their homology is zero at the dimension one. So there's a unique state. So all argument here that I used this requires some logical qubit encoded. This required the orthogonal state that is not distinguishable unless the observable is large. So these arguments does not work. Correlation function, arbitrary region, is exactly zero as we have calculated. So what do we do? Do you have to, would you conclude that the ToriCode standard sphere is easy to create? Any guess? Yeah, it's hard. But why hard? How we show that? That's a different thing. So for that, and let me introduce another technique. Let me start with the linear algebra. That there will be a bipartite system. I drew two lines, but you think of it as a bipartite system, say A and B. And I bring two operators. Yeah, two operators, just some generic one. Since A and B have a tensor product structure, I can decompose this into, let me use I and J. P, A, I, tensor, P, J, B. I know you can do some Schmitt decomposition to reduce the sum and so on, but I don't need that anything. Just a very generic expression. Same thing can be done for this side. And now I define, this is infinity symbol, but I read it as a trist product. So it's a symbol. A, B to B, X, Y, I, J, P, A, Q, A, I, Q, B. Well, let me compare this with the ordinary multiplication. So the below is the ordinary multiplication that you would do in usual sense. It's just P appears before Q because P appeared before Q. Twist product follows the same rule for the first component, but reverses the multiplication order in the second. It's left to you as an exercise that it is well defined. In the sense, there's ambiguity because my decomposition of an operator into some of tensor products is not unique. Same as here. Nonetheless, the result must be well defined. The logic is not that different. If you knew that this multiplication made sense, then that multiplication made also sense. Okay, what can I do with that? I'm gonna build up correlation function looking formula using that. But before doing that, let me remark another linear algebra effect. If P, well, P, let P acts on A, M, B, a tripartite system and Q also. But suppose Q did not act on M. Q acted on M by identity. Then I can form the twist products between P and Q by, according to two different composition. I could insert division for A, M, B or A, M, B. And the claim is that whatever you do, the result of the twist product is the same. If you knew the tensor product description, it must be very easy. So this is my operator P and let me use a different color. And Q would be sitting on here. The normal multiplication would do this. That's normal multiplication. Twist product will do this. But this amounts to this diagram and that amounts to that diagram. It's the same thing. P, A, and what? P, A, B. A, M, B. A, M, B, yes. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But that expansion is highly non-unique. But that's the essence of tensor product. So let's now apply these linear algebra constructions to the geometry local setting, as we always do. I consider specifically for the Tori code, but you can do apply elsewhere. I consider two operators that lies here. Maybe I can use different colors. So these are two string operators for the specificity.  And let the red line be the loop along the dual lattice consisting of tensor product of X. So they anti-commute at one point, but since there are two, they are overall commuting. Each of them are a stabilizer. No problem. Now I wanna consider that they're twist product. So my, yeah, this is my. So if you think of the time, well, yeah, time direction, the multiplication order of the operators in this direction coming out of the plane, then P times Q would be like this. The white line stays on top of Q. Twist product will reverse it. Now I said twist product will reverse it, but specifically what decomposition of the system into two parties have I used? I could use this, but I could use like that. Are the two the same? Does that lead to the same twist product? That can be answered by iterating this. How? Let this region be M. Here, P is X by identity, Q is potentially non-trivial. The replace the, interchange the role of P and Q in this lemma. So, you know, so that means I could just reroute my partition like that. And that next step you apply here right now P X on this middle M, but Q X by identity. So you could go around and you can do so on. And inductively you can push down this division line down below. In fact, as long as it avoids the crossing points, it doesn't matter where it's placed. Any question at this point? Okay. Now I wanna exploit this fact that I can choose the division line anywhere to show this.  And I wanna claim that this is equal to, so the result of the choice product conjugated by U is obtained by taking a choice product of the evolved operators. Okay, the nice feature about the quantum circuit is that you can do it inductively, layer by layer, or even gate by gate. So let's work with, let's show this proposition for the depth one circuit U. Well, even simply fine. Let's prove this for U consistent with just a single local gate. That will do the job, right? Since there are only finitely many gates that can be relevant for this diagram. If it is here, if U was here, nothing happens. If U was here, okay, fine. I can reroute my division line like that. Then the conjugation by U is acting on a solely one party. So I'm taking care of that one gate. If it is anywhere else, you can apply this pushing boundary here and there to ensure that that gate is only acting on a one party. So this equality is true. Or as long as these crossing points does not intervene with my division line. Okay, so I'm gonna use, I'm gonna calculate this. Oh, oh, yeah. It looks like a correlation function, but now the multiplication in the usual case was an ordinary multiplication. Now it's a particular product, okay? I wanna evolve the state or equivalently, I wanna conjugate the observable in the Heisenberg picture. But because of this identity, conjugation just passes through for individual components. And there's another, oh, yeah. It's not difficult to show that for product states, whatever you choose for P and Q, whatever choice product you choose, this must be an advantage. And product state is so strict that you can actually show this. So it remains only to find the sum P and Q whose choice product correlation function is non-zero. And on the surface, on the Tori code, on the sphere, you can find such an operator. Well, I have drawn this. You just embed everything in a two-dimensional sphere and let these two circles residing in some big portion of that sphere. It does not require anything, but there's two stabilizers that is anti-commuting at a point, but the points are separated. So overall commuting, but after a choice product, it picks up minus sign. So that gives you non-zero correlation function for this, which is different from the product states. Therefore, the state on the sphere is takes large depth, proportional to the linear system signs to generate. Yeah, so just to summarize, we wanted to show the complexity of states by looking at the various correlations, basically. Yeah, oh yeah, there's questions. Can you repeat the question? So you wanna know the reason why? Oh, oh, locally invisible. So yes, right. Well, he spoke of a locally invisible operator which appears in the paper where the strict product was introduced. Basically, just to tell you the definition, locally visible means that if you look at the locally reduced density matrix before and after that operator has acted, but then then you cannot tell the difference, even if the operator has acted. One example is this string operator. Even if you just cut it down, then there will be some violation of the stabilizer at the end of the string, but you cannot tell whether operator has existed or not by looking at only this region. So this is locally invisible. Intuition, well, locally invisible operators are teleporting some top-level charged particles, and this strict product is supposed to capture their mutual rating statistics. But the point of this construction is that you don't have to talk about anything about NES or anything else, just a linear algebra. Yeah, so in that sense, this correlation function is mainly about the intent of the witness. It doesn't tell you how to find it, but once you find it, then you know it is integral. So the overall flow towards the showing complexity of certain states boils down to finding certain correlations. So same thing applies up until, well, the recent result of NRTS. They found a particular correlation in the hidden in the code states. And this is the one instance. We have discussed the three tools, the usual correlation function, the cost-distance arguments, and finally that these two products. I think around time, thanks.


What's happening YouTube? Thanks for tuning into the channel today right back here with the rust belt mechanic as you guys can see We got the Duramex back in the shop today Unfortunately, we're not gonna be really doing any kind of major modifications or horsepower upgrades or anything like that for you guys Just yet We've got a ton of those in mind and we got those planned out for the next couple weeks But unfortunately today, we're fixing some broken parts a broken part to be specific would be a Universal joint in the rear driveshaft now when I purchased this truck It seemed to me that this driveshaft was probably an aftermarket one It looks like it's got a couple of stickers a couple of custom little weld spots from where it was Balanced and everything so I think it's a custom driveshaft But as far as we know right now the rear most u-joint on this two-piece driveshaft is bad So we're gonna be changing that one out today Let's play a clip for you guys to see what the sound is that we're trying to take care of in this destroyed u-joint Here's our big old Bessie driveshaft two-piece Mamma Jamma and where we're actually going to be focusing on is here at the Rear-most u-joint and we're gonna look in and see what we can find here looking in at this cup first Doesn't look like we have really much issue with that one Looking at this one lower here Doesn't really look like much issue in there This one over here we're looking like we got some you know a little bit of blown out seals to it But I think our culprit is going to be this one right here You can see the seals pretty much all the way done You see a little bit more red material rust coming out That's going to be from those roller bearings that have failed inside the cups So we've got a an upgraded set here to be able to put in we're gonna take the driveshaft all the way out And then we're going to inspect all of our u-joints just to make sure we're doing good on that one and check our Carrier bearing as well to make sure that one's functioning just fine And actually even though I've already made a video on replacing this transfer case seal I'm gonna have to replace it again because I believe when we put the lift kit in as you can see right here We've got a spacer for the midpoint of the shaft It's not able to adjust back that way far enough So I think when we're getting full articulation on the rear end It's actually pushing that yoke into the rear part of the seal on the transfer case causing us to Sling fluid and leak again. So we're gonna replace that seal and then I think here There is a little oblong hole into the frame right here. We're gonna Kind of just grind it out back way a little bit so we can put that whole driveshaft Back a little bit farther and get a little bit more clearance for it So let's go ahead and get this driveshaft off to be able to get this one off pretty easy Looks like a couple of 10 or 11 millimeter bolts take off the sleeve caps right there and get the driveshaft off Now that you've got it out. We can see kind of what we're talking about here This one right here spins pretty easily. We don't feel a whole lot of binding maybe a little bit this one It's got a little bit of catch to it, but then when we start to spin this this way boy. She She catches a lot and you can see our seals have just kind of gotten destroyed and we can start seeing some red Goop and stuff start coming through some of the rusty little steel rollers. So what we're gonna do now is to get this Out we've got a couple of clips here on either end There and there and then what we're gonna do is we're gonna get a pair of side cuts And we're gonna pinch this and get those clips out of here to start off with Now this end is going to be pretty easy because we don't have a yoke that's on this side So these ones are pretty free So the first thing we're gonna do I just usually use a standard pair of snips to be able to squeeze this lock together Give it a little twist back and forth to break it free and then there's our retainer clip And then our other side Just like so Now what we're gonna want to do is get this thing over to a vise to be able to have something to kind of strike on to get These out So now we've got our driveshaft over to our workbench here where we've got it placed in our vise and how we've got our Vice situated is right here on the two open ends of the u-joint We've got those here on our rails and then what we're gonna do is we're gonna find something that is the diameter of The shaft yoke right here and we're gonna be able to place that on there and just give her some love taps And then as you can see what it's starting to do is this cup is working its way up Through the shaft see we've got approach rooting there scoot it back some We get a little close up here and now you can see how Rusty and crusty we were inside of here all of this dust That's some destroyed bearings inside of there and that's what our failure point was Now all we're really doing is just flipping over doing the same thing to the other side Like I said, we're pretty lucky on this one because this is the open end We don't have another yoke to have to take off at this end Normally if you would you would just flip it over and do the same thing for the yoke side You really don't want to be on this area the driveshaft because you'll probably end up taking one of these ends right here and Bashing them in so then you won't be able to get your clip into there correctly Or putting dents or damaging your actual driveshaft throwing it off balance You'll just end up getting into a whole lot more trouble from that point on Whoever said the sockets weren't impact rated Snap on guys gonna love me that I like so That one had a couple of bearing failures in there is a couple little broken pieces, but It was still working for that point at least But we'll get this thing all swapped out here Now the u-joint that we're going from as you can see on that one A little bit of zoomed in that one had still a little bit of grease and then this one was all crusty and rusty That's the one that we had total failure. So now what we're going to Is a moog super strength Universal joint it does have a greaseable end to it now We're going to have this end because the greaseable part is at a cap So we want that one to be where either a yoke would be but normally is on this one It's going to be the yoke for the Rear end we don't want to put it on this side because Our clips going to be right there in the middle and we don't want that one getting in any kind of way So we're going to want to situate that one on the open faces here Still going to want to use your vise now what you're going to want to do is Take these off very carefully because I don't know if we can see in there There's all kinds of little tiny little roller bearings. So we're going to want to set those Kind of off to the side here nice and neat and then We're going to place this into our area You also want to make sure you clean out the inside part of the driveshaft as well as the ring Where the clips are going to be seating as well Easily put it into that area Now what you're going to want to do is you're going to take your open parts The caps and you're going to lift your bearing up to that point and set it down into the cap Take your hammer very lightly And we're going to start tapping it down into while you're still holding up the universal joint Against that cap. You do not want it to let it fall and let all those roller bearings fall out and go everywhere There we've got it most of the way in and now we can go ahead and roll it over To the other side Now if you've got a little bit smaller universal joints these bigger ones They don't really want to do it that easily you could put it in between your vise and crank it and press it together Or if you have a press you could use that one as well But usually what we like to just have right here in the shop is just our little anvil end on The vise so this one we're going to lift up the joint just a little bit till it starts Into the little bearings Then we're going to start tapping it in Now before you get going too far, we're going to want to find something that's going to be the diameter of the cup But just inside the diameter of the outside ring of our shaft Some people like to use sockets others have special impact tools for your air hammer that matches this diameter I personally I actually have just a simple part This is a doubt a pin out of an american axle that holds your spider gears together Usually that's about the same diameter as most of these cups So we're going to tap this one in until we are able to see That inner ring where our clip is going to go There we are we can see our clip insert and we did not go too far at all So now we're going to get our new bag of clips here And install those with our pair of pliers Now i'm not going to go into too much detail on replacing the seal because like I said I already did one video with this So up here in the description, you know You guys can see that one if you really want to see how to change the seal out So now what we've got to do right here where our carrier goes is we want to be able to move it back that way a little bit more Unfortunately with what we have in the drive shaft, we just have to move it backwards We've got plenty of room on our yoke up front to be able to have plenty of slip to it So these holes right here aren't Hollowed out enough to be able to move the carrier back. So what we've got right here. We've got a nice little carbide bit With a drill and it is roughly the same diameter as the hole So all we're going to be able to do is just grind these down I've already had gone ahead and marked where they were at before And then we're going to move the holes back about an extra half three quarters of an inch That'll give us plenty of room to be able to move it back to where it needs to go All right We've got everything on the center carrier all lined up And then what you're going to want to do is you're going to definitely want to jack up your rear end because Unless you get it dead on exactly on the same spline that you took it off before You're not going to be able to turn the transfer case Not going to be able to turn the rear end So jack up your front end so you can be able to turn this to be able to get the u joints lined up correctly So now we've got our rear bolts all tightened up We preliminarily put the bolts in at the center carrier, but we did not line them up Like I said before we were having the issue with the drive shaft coming forward and touching that seal So we had kind of put those on now What we're going to do is kind of Push that as far back as it will go and then we'll get that one all tightened up as well So now like I said before we went ahead and left our little grease pin and this isn't a standard grease Orc, this is one of the needle style greasers So we've got one of these to be able to put some grease into it There we go. Looks pretty good Alrighty guys. Well that just about wraps up the project Like I said really not that hard of a thing to do Just kind of want to give you guys some insight on what we're doing on that respect So speaking of driveline, you know, I had a little bit of thought into feeling, you know, what we're doing with the Duramax here We're adding all this power. We've got a turbo coming We're probably going to be doing injectors head studs all at the same time So we kind of wanted to do a little preliminary Helping the driveline out So we all know that once you start adding power to these Duramax The failure point is going to be the transmission. You can't expect even an adolescent transmission to be able to hold You know upwards of five six seven hundred horsepower and upwards of a thousand foot pounds of torque from factory standards That's no it just no it's not going to happen. So we're going to have to do some trans updates to it So I thought that I was going to do a full build on this one However, I ran into such a good deal on a one Transmission that is a stage five PPE pre-built transmission that has been run, but very very little So we're actually going to be taking a road trip next weekend to pick that trans up We're going to bring it back here to Ohio And then we're actually going to go through it just to make sure the clutches and everything inside of it Is all hunky dory and we're going to put a different torque converter in it as well as It was kind of a pulling truck. So I don't really need a 2600 stall converter in it So we're going to look for us a new converter keep my eyes peeled out for one of those Well, that's about all I've got for you guys today. Make sure you hit that thumbs up Make sure you subscribe to the channel turn on that bell notification So you get notified when I come out with new awesome content like this one Stay tuned for the nifty tools of the week And if you haven't already make sure you guys go and check out Toolheads crate.com me and jrc 54s little project where we have been making these subscription crate services For technicians and tool lovers all alike for you guys make sure you go and check that one out I appreciate it. Thanks you guys as always You guys stay awesome


At 11 a.m. on May 8th, 1856, California congressman Philemon Herbert, the Democrat actually from John Fremont's district, and a friend of his popped into the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., hoping to get a late breakfast. But it was nearly lunchtime, so his breakfast expectations were not ones the kitchen at the hotel restaurant was necessarily prepared for. The waiter was a young Irish immigrant. Now keep in mind that it hadn't even been a full decade since the U.S. saw a flood of Irish immigrants in response to the potato famine, and anti-Irish cinnamon in the north, compounded by the anti-Catholic views of the time, rivaled the racism against black in many areas of the country. The majority of Hillbilly, for instance, was originally an epithet directed at Scottish and Irish settlers in the Appalachian region. So the Irish waiter was named Riordan, and when Congressman Herbert demanded a breakfast, the waiter said he would have to check with the kitchen to see if the order could be accommodated. Herbert was incensed. He ordered Riordan to quote, Get my breakfast damned quick, his voice raised, and this brought over an older waiter, also Irish, named Thomas Keating, to intercede. I don't know exactly how the conversation went down. Maybe the young waiter was being rude, maybe Herbert was just enraged at the presence of yet another Irish immigrant.  Riordan ran to accommodate the angry congressman's demands, but Keating stayed, and he said something to Congressman Herbert, what was said we don't know, but it incensed Herbert enough that he got out of his seat, pulled out his pistol, and struck Keating in the back of the neck with it. Now Keating circled around a different table to obstruct the congressman's path to him, and he picked up a plate, which he feigned as if he was going to throw it a couple times, though these were just box. So Herbert picks up a chair and hurls it at the waiter. Now at this point Keating did throw the plate, and then the pair closed in on each other around the other side of the table where they tussled, breaking several dishes. The exact details of the confrontation are not fully clear. With Thomas Keating's brother, Pat worked in the kitchen, and he heard the ruckus, so he came out to investigate. When he got on the scene, Herbert had his pistol drawn, so Pat immediately grabbed it, and he and Herbert struggled for control of the firearm. Finally, Herbert's companion, who had thus far not joined in the fray, stepped in to grab Pat, and broke his grip on the gun. Thomas Keating threw his hands up to try to yield to the congressman before any more harm was done, but it was too late. Herbert fired off his shot, point-blank, into the waiter, and he fell to the floor where he bled to death. A congressman had just killed a waiter in a Washington, D.C., hotel. When this happened you would expect it to be big news, and it was for a moment. But by the time Herbert stood trial it was almost forgotten. Just to close out the story by the way, Herbert turned himself in after the killing, and he was tried in July. His prosecutor was actually a personal friend of his, and you can imagine the ethical implications of that. And the judge presiding over the case chatted with lawyers with an easy ear shot of the jurors to argue that he personally felt the case was clearly self-defense. So the trial was farce, clearly in my view, and it was fixed to support one of Washington's own. But I only mention that because I think it's interesting. The bigger point is that by the time the trial was taking place, not many people were concerned about the story of a congressman killing an Irish waiter. Even other tumultuous events fell to garner much attention. Less than a week after the killing of Thomas Keating, a newspaper editor named James King was murdered in San Francisco for exposing a small-scale scandal in the city's customs house. At this point the city government seemed to be felling to uphold justice by many San Franciscans, and citizens were forming vigilance committees to carry out their own vigilante justice. They apprehended King's killer in the subject of his exposition, James Casey, as well as another man who, several months prior, had killed a U.S. marshal but was acquitted by a jury. So the vigilance committee hanged both men, but these actions enerved a lot of San Franciscans who saw them as acting outside the law. Some people didn't like the vigilante justice, so the Law and Order Association was formed by many people to support the official law of the city government. And one of the primary members of this association was one William Tecumseh Sherman. What many San Franciscans saw the Law and Order Association is even more dangerous. One supporter of the vigilance committee said, quote, Many can neither eat nor sleep. They say the Law and Order people will plunder the city, end quote. But others felt differently. Parents in the city used exaggerated reports of the vigilance committee to scare their children into behaving, or else the vigilantes might come and take them away. The reality appears to be far more banal than newspaper records and citizen perceptions, as is often the case. Sensationalizing the news is not exactly a new phenomenon, but the perceptions of violence and chaos were real, even if poorly founded. All of this took place in the first half of May 1856, but it's largely forgotten. And that's because of what occurred in the second half of the same month which monopolized national attention. On May 19th and 20th, Senator Charles Sumner gave a lengthy speech on the floor of the Senate called The Crime Against Kansas. On May 21st, pro-slavery settlers in Kansas sacked the effective headquarters of the Free State settlers in Lawrence, Kansas. And the next day, Representative Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner nearly to death on the floor of the Senate. Two days after that, John Brown and a small group of Kansas free-staters hacked five pro-slavery Kansans to death with broadswords. These events all related in occurring in rapid succession dominated national attention. The killing of Keating was weak-sold news that was incidental to the national controversy over territorial slavery and the fugitive slave law. And San Francisco, in the years prior to the Transcontinental Railroad, may as well have been on another continent for most Americans. Kansas was the battleground for the sectional divide in the mid-1850s. I'm Chris Calton, and this is the Mises Institute podcast, Historical Controversies. I won't be getting to the events that took place in May of 1856 today because I think it's important to look at Kansas and the years prior to understand the events that led up to one of the most significant few days in American history. To do this, we need to start with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Coming into the 1850s, there was no Kansas territory. The unorganized remainder of the Louisiana purchase included the area that would become Kansas. In 1853, an Iowa senator named Augustus Dodge introduced a bill that sought to reorganize the Nebraska territory, which would include what would eventually become both Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas. This bill would have left the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery in place, which would have precluded slave owners from bringing slaves into the new territory. Obviously, this meant that the bill faced democratic opposition, especially from southern Democrats. Stephen Douglas, being a northern Democrat, tried to bridge the division by amending the bill by inserting popular sovereignty. This was effectively an alternative to the Missouri Compromise rule, but it did not directly address or repeal the Missouri Compromise, and that wasn't enough for southern slaveholders who would not feel comfortable migrating to any territory in which they did not have legal recognition of their slaves. So Southerners wanted more concrete guarantees protecting slavery. Southerners wanted explicit protection of slavery in the territories. Instead, Douglas tried again to meet them halfway. So on January 23rd, he introduced a new bill that had two significant changes. First, it organized two territories, with the northern part being Nebraska, which at the time still included the modern Dakotas, and the southern part being Kansas, named after the Kansas Indians. The second change was that the new bill directly addressed the Missouri Compromise. The bill called the Missouri Compromise, quote, inoperative and void. But it wasn't actually repealing the Missouri Compromise, it was effectively claiming that the Compromise of 1850 had already voided the Missouri Compromise, which was a dubious claim, but it was a tactical one. Any attempt to explicitly repeal the Compromise would be blocked by the north, and any legislation that didn't throw out the Compromise would be blocked by the south. So by wording the Kansas-Nebraska Act the way it did, it was expected that the Missouri Compromise question, which many people, such as President Franklin Pierce, believed to be unconstitutional anyway, would be handled by the Supreme Court. So this was clear political maneuvering. The division of Nebraska to create Kansas was important because Kansas shared a border with Missouri, a slave state. Were that territory to become a free state, Missouri would be surrounded on three sides by free states. So Missouri slaves would have numerous havens when running away. If the territory were organized as the large Nebraska territory, it would be easier for Northerners to populate it and vote out slavery under popular sovereignty. But by splitting up the territory, Nebraska could be surrendered to the north while Kansas could be potentially populated by enough supporters of slavery to make it a slave state through popular sovereignty. The new bill was remarkably controversial in the north. One famous protest was published as The Appeal of the Independent Democrats by Lincoln's future Treasury Secretary and later Supreme Court Justice Sam and Pete Chase. The appeal accused Douglas of violating the sacred pledge of the Missouri Compromise. Senator Charles Sumner also gave a speech denouncing the bill, unlike many wigs, this controversy would compel him to switch to the Republican Party. It's also interesting to note here that in the face of arguments about the morality of slavery from members of the clergy protesting the bill, Stephen Douglas, in arguing in favor of the Democratic principle of popular sovereignty, said that the people, when voting on laws, determined morality, which is of course typical political logic. But the current president, Franklin Pierce, was a Democrat and he urged Northern Democrats to show party unity by supporting the bill and the Kansas-Nebraska Act was pushed through, which Pierce signed into law on May 30th, 1854, four days after the infamous Anthony Burns affair that was already further inflaming sectional tensions throughout the country. The bill officially titled the Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas left the slavery question up to the popular vote of the territorial residents, but it did not specify when the voting could take place what constituted a valid resident or any other details that would be pertinent to the matter of popular sovereignty. By leaving these matters up to the interpretation of the settlers in the new territories, Stephen Douglas paved the way for bleeding Kansas. When the bill passed, Southerners took it for granted that the majority of the settlers in Kansas would be Missourians. In 1854, there were fewer than 800 settlers in Kansas, but within nine months there were more than 8,000, at least according to the first territorial census. What took Missourians by surprise was the number of New Englanders who migrated to Kansas. Many of these settlers were doing so for political reasons. Nearly half the settlers in Kansas were from Missouri, though some of the Missourians were white laborers who actually opposed slavery on protectionist grounds. They didn't want to compete with slave labor. In Northern states provided about a third of the settlers, many of whom were moving at least in part to try to establish Kansas as a free state with private philanthropists helping to fund such settlements. If you remember from the last episode after the Anthony Burns affair, Amos Lawrence, a wealthy New Englander, claimed to have become an abolitionist. Like many Northerners with abolitionist sympathies, he still held views regarding the racial superiority of whites, but he became active in working for not only the ending of slavery, but the rights of blacks as well. In fact, just as an aside, even among abolitionists, most people still held these kinds of racist views, which is another thing that would set John Brown apart because he was one of the few people that really treated blacks as equal to himself, impressing people like Frederick Douglass, but also bothering other abolitionists to some degree. But that's a bit off topic for the time. Anyway, Amos Lawrence funded the most famous of the immigrant aid societies, which were organizations that formed to help people settle in Kansas. His company was called the New England Immigrant Aid Company. The New England Immigrant Aid Company was actually founded by another philanthropist named Eli Thayer, but Amos Lawrence was one of its chief investors, and the city of Lawrence, Kansas would be named after him in August of 1854, when it was founded by the first group of settlers sent by the New England Immigrant Aid Company. Lawrence, Kansas became the base of the Free Soil Settlers, and it was where the newspaper Herald of Freedom was published, which was an anti-slavery publication, and would be used to inform the rest of the country about the goings on in Kansas. Within five years, roughly 300 fugitive slaves would pass through Lawrence on their way to Canada or Iowa, and the pro-slavery settlers would refer to it derisively as an abolition hole. The reality was that most of the Free Soil Settlers had no desire to abolish slavery, so accusing them of being abolitionists was not really true for more than a small handful of the Kansas settlers. But the Missourians, like other Southerners, genuinely believed that these people were abolitionists who wanted to end slavery entirely. That's an important point to keep in mind during the whole history of the Civil War and the lead up to it, actually. I think some people downplay the importance of slavery in the buildup to the Civil War by pointing to the fact that the North, for the most part, wasn't overly concerned with slavery, which is largely true even though things like the Fugitive Slave Act did push people towards abolitionism. But even then, most Northerners were more concerned with the so-called slave power, being the political power of the Southern states, than slavery itself. These people are correct in their assessment of Northern sentiment, but they forget or ignore the Southern perception that the North was full of abolitionists, and that belief drove Southern behavior in significant ways. And some people on a different side of the debate overstate the anti-slavery sentiments of people like Abraham Lincoln and other Northerners who were rather lukewarm on the issue of slavery. These people are pretty much just buying the Southern narrative about the North without actually looking into the facts. So we have two polarizing narratives about the Civil War that pretty much mutually depend on having at best a partial view of the historical context in which these events took place. So that's why I stress these things the way I do. But this perception that abolitionists were flooding in to take over the state is important. As long as Missourians believed that was the reality, it would affect their strategy in making Missouri a slave state. In response to the supposed nest of abolitionists, pro-slavery Missourians started organizing into pro-slavery groups with names like the Platt County Self-Defense Association, which was formed in the summer of 1854. Despite stressing that these groups were self-defense organizations, members of the group were openly hostile toward free blacks. Slaves who were allowed to hire out their own labor and whites who opposed the extension of slavery in the new territory, which were viewed as abolitionists regardless of what their actual views on slavery as a whole were. The Platt County Self-Defense Association was founded and led by a man named B.F. Stringfellow. And Stringfellow was determined to protect Kansas from quote, unquote, phelonious philanthropists who were supposedly luring slaves away from their owners. Shortly after the group was founded, for example, Stringfellow's organization accused a man of forging passages for slaves, and they convicted him of the crime of being an abolitionist. This all being extra-legal, essentially vigilante justice, of course. So in punishment, they shaved the head of this guy and told him he had 48 hours to get out of Kansas. Another man the group convicted of abolitionism was given 24 lashes with a whip as punishment for his criminal anti-slavery behavior, and then he was escorted to Iowa. Stringfellow even wrote a manifesto for his self-defensives entitled, Negro Slavery, No Evil, which obviously rejected the moral condemnation of slavery levied by some Northerners. The self-defensives also advocated free speech. So long as that speech wasn't anti-slavery speech because, as Stringfellow argued, quote, in a slave-holding community, the expression of such sentiments is a positive act, more criminal, more dangerous than killing the torch of the incendiary, mixing the poison of the assassin, end of quote. In other words, just to be clear on that, the pro-slavery factions of Kansas were opposed to speech that might incite violence, and using violence to suppress such speech was naturally self-defensive, not that this logic has any modern day parallels, of course. So in the New England Immigrant Aid Company was arming its settlers, it wasn't based on any kind of irrational fear. The first clashes between the pro-slavery border Ruffians, as they became known, and the Free State settlers took place over land disputes. New England settlers were purchasing contested land claims, and in response, Missourians would set fire to their cabins and destroy the tents the New Englanders were living in. So the Northern settlers started forming their own military groups to stand up to Missouri harassment. One of my favorite stories is of a California Gold Rush veteran who settled in Kansas, and when his land was disputed by Missourians, he started stripping off his coat and vest as if preparing to fight. So I can't help but imagine Skye taking off his shirt saying, come at me, bro, because this is effectively the 19th century version of that. And when some of the Missourians were ready to call his bluff and fight him, he shouted out for his friends to hold him back, which was also a bluff, as he had no friends inside the tents he was yelling at. But the bluff, at least in this case, worked and the Missourians backed off. Territorial elections started to take place in the fall of 1854. The first governor of Kansas, appointed by President Pierce, was Andrew H. Reader. He was a Northern Democrat and a supporter of popular sovereignty, much like Stephen Douglas. So he set the terms for the elections, specifying that voters must actually reside in the Kansas territory, among other things, but his instructions were virtually ignored and the actual election practices varied from one locality to another. Pro-slavery settlements, for instance, considered it the intention to settle in the territory sufficient to be allowed to vote. So he set the first election for territorial delegates to take place on November 29th, 1854. Despite stipulating the residency requirement for election participation, Missourians ignored the rules. At the convention in Leavenworth, which was effectively the pro-slavery headquarters in Kansas, most of the attendees were non-residents. The convention decided to support the quote unquote Southern Rights candidate, a man named J.W. Whitfield. Whitfield won the election by a landslide, but the landslide was what made the election so clearly dubious to observers. On the day of the election, Missourians flocked across the border to cast illegal votes in almost every district, pro-slavery Missourians to control of the polls, intimidated election judges, and drove off anybody they believed to be a free-soiler. One Kansas voter gave his testimony of the November 1854 election, quote, when I would try to get in, they would pull me by the coat, crowd me, and I could not succeed to get through the crowd. I then went round in hurrah for General Whitfield, and some of them who did not know me said, there's a good pro-slavery man, and lifted me up over their heads, and I crawled along over their heads and put in my vote. Then someone who saw my ticket cried out, he is a damned abolitionist, let him down, and they dropped me, end quote. One pro-slavery man even told John Wakefield, the free-soil candidate, that if he challenged voters, quote, you will be badly abused and probably killed. Now, a lot of what came out in the newspapers about the goings on in Kansas was greatly exaggerated, but the voter intimidation by the border ruffians appeared to be fully accurate. And it wasn't just voter intimidation in non-resident voting, but simply gross fraud that took place. Whitfield received 2,258 votes against Wakefield's 248, and one other candidate, Robert Flinikin's 305 votes. But an investigation into voter fraud would later find that more than 1,700 of the votes for Whitfield were fraudulent. But the fraud wasn't necessary, obviously, because Whitfield would have won even without the 1,700 fraudulent votes, so the pro-slavery faction probably shot themselves in the foot with the election practices because the unnecessary fraud only helped rally people against them, including some pro-slavery Democrats who at least believed in honest elections. The next election for the territorial legislature was to take place on March 30th, 1855, and this would demonstrate the dishonesty of the electoral practice by Missourians even more blatantly. In this case, some Southern slaveholders were paying Missourians to go into Kansas to vote for a pro-slavery legislature. And just to make clear the contrast, Amos Lawrence and other wealthy New Englanders were helping to fund settlements in Kansas, but the settlements were legitimate. The wealthy Southerners were just paying people to flood into Kansas, vote, and then leave. Some of these voters were tricking election officials by changing their clothing and voting multiple times. Armed Missourians also made camp outside of Lawrence, Kansas, to intimidate potential anti-slavery voters. In some cases, Lawrence residents actually had to climb onto the roof of the building where voting was taking place to sneak in and cast their votes. At another polling place, South of Lawrence, a pro-slavery activist named Samuel Jones, who became the sheriff a little bit later, and a band of border ruffians charged into the place, stole the ballot box full of votes, and told the judge there that he had five minutes to resign or be killed. The judge did resign, but he was able to smuggle out some of the election results as he fled. Other acts demonstrate the brazen opposition to a legitimate election. One Missouri paper called the Parkville Luminary denounced the election fraud taking place in Kansas, so a group of pro-slavery Missourians, more than 200 of them, threw the printing press into the river and ordered the publisher and editor out of the state. And another example, when a man named Party Butler, who had settled in Kansas, publicly voiced his intention to vote to keep slavery out of Kansas, another pro-slavery mob dragged him into the river, gave him a mock trial, debated on whether or not they should hang him, and finally put him on a raft and set him adrift with a sign that read Eastern Immigrant Aid Express, the Reverend Mr. Butler's agent for the Underground Railroad. Election fraud was so widespread that more than 6,000 votes were cast, nearly all of which were for the pro-slavery candidate, despite the fact that there were only about 2,500 legal voters in the entire territory. When a lawyer named William Phillips signed an affidavit attesting to the voter fraud, some border ruffians kidnapped him, shaved the side of his head, stripped him of his clothing, tarred and feathered him, and held a mock slave auction in which he was sold in Western Missouri, mock sold, of course, he was really just expelled out of the territory. So after the March election, the new pro-slavery legislature set to work ensuring the protection of slaveholders in Kansas, while the free soil settlers viewed the new government as a mockery of justice. And this meant that even many of the settlers who were more apathetic towards slavery actually moved toward abolitionism in response to this. James Montgomery is a great example of this. He moved to Kansas with no strong opinion on slavery, but he would eventually become an ally of John Brown and carry out raids against Missouri slave owners before and during the Civil War. By August, Governor Reader was fired by President Pierce and replaced with a second territorial governor, Wilson Shannon. Meanwhile, the new legislature passed a law called an act to punish offenses against slave property. This made aiding a slave rebellion, a crime punishable by death, regardless of the race of the offender, and the death penalty was also prescribed for people who spoke, wrote, or circulated any kind of statement that might incite a slave revolt. For general anti-slave speech, such as saying that holding people in bondage was immoral, people were to be sentenced to two years hard labor, and anybody who conscientiously objected to slavery was barred from jury duty. So the new slave code for Kansas pretty much made any kind of expressed opposition to slavery in any form a criminal offense punishable by either death or hard labor, and the trial was guaranteed to be held in front of a pro-slavery jury. So this is the environment that the anti-slavery settlers were dealing with in 1855 and 1856, and I think that context is vitally important to understand the goings on in 56. In opposition to the bogus legislature, as it was referred to by the free soilers, the free state settlers elected their own legislature at a convention held at Big Springs in August of 1855. The attendees organized a free state party, denounced the official legislature, and appointed the recently fired first governor of the territory, Andrew Reeder, as their delegate to Congress. They also planned another convention to be held in Topeka, another city founded by New England immigrant aid company settlers, to draft a free state constitution. On November 12th, the Topeka constitution was drafted and in its Bill of Rights, slavery was banned. Although there was a debate over the issue, another clause also excluded free blacks from the state as well in order to protect white labor. This is worth mentioning because as Kansas moves forward over the next few years, we can actually follow the anti-slavery shifts through their various constitutions as Kansans react to violence from the border ruffians by moving closer toward the abolitionist positions. So further constitutions would eventually protect the rights of free blacks, but the early free soil constitution would not allow free black immigration. The idea of the Topeka constitution is that the country would recognize the farce of the territorial elections and would back the free state legislature when admitting Kansas as a state. But President Pierce denounced the free state legislature in January of 1856 as being revolutionary and potentially treasonous. The president blamed the conflicts in Kansas entirely on the northern settlers. The free soil Kansans were on their own. Pierce's speech made it possible for the pro-slavery legislature to present to themselves as the party of law and order, but it also reinforced northern fears about the southern slave power. Preparing for war, the free soilers started referring to their sharps rifles as sharps revised statutes. They were prepared to fight back and private organizations in New England raised more than $43,000 to help arm the free state settlers in Kansas. The first casualty of the controversy in Kansas came about not over a dispute about slavery, but over a land dispute. A settler named Franklin Coleman was squatting on a plot of land abandoned by some settlers in Indiana who had sold their land to another Indiana named Jacob Branson. In 1854, Branson told Coleman that he had a legal claim to the land and tried to move into Coleman's house. But Coleman pulled a gun on him and held him off. So a group of men were brought in to arbitrate the dispute and they awarded part of the plot to Branson, but the boundaries between Branson's land and Coleman's were not perfectly defined. Now Branson was part of the free state militia and he wanted to use this affiliation to intimidate Coleman, so he brought in some more men. One of these men was an Ohioan named Charles Dow. This all took place over the course of a year or so. So in November 21st, 1855, Dow went to the Hickory Point blacksmith shop to get some work done on his wagon. While he was there, he got into an argument with one of Coleman's friends. Still nobody resorted to violence and Dow left, but as he was leaving, he passed Coleman who fired off his gun at him. When Dow turned around, Coleman unloaded a charge of buckshot into his chest, killing him on the spot. Coleman would actually claim self-defense here. He said that Dow raised his wagon scheme threateningly. A wagon scheme was a piece of iron about two foot long. So Coleman fled to Missouri because he didn't expect to be treated fairly by the free state settlers at Hickory Point. Now the land dispute was not clearly defined according to the factions in the slavery controversy. Some free staters had sided with Coleman's squatters rights and some pro-slavery men had actually backed Branson's title rights to the land, but Dow's death was made into a political issue that ignited the building tensions between the two groups. Five days after Dow's murder, a meeting was held at Branson's home on the disputed land in Hickory Point. The group formed a vigilance committee to capture Dow's murderer and bring him to justice. Other free state men had already burned down the houses of two pro-slavery settlers in the area and ordered the women in their homes to leave. The newly formed vigilante group then went and burned Coleman's home, which was empty at the time. A few hours later, Samuel Jones, who is now the pro-slavery government's sheriff and had warrants sworn out by the victims of the free state vigilantes, showed up with a posse to arrest Branson for disturbing the peace. Soon after arresting Branson, Jones and his posse ran into the 15 member vigilante group, though Jones would later exaggerate by claiming that there were between 30 and 40 of them. The party had quickly received word of Branson's arrest, so they got together to organize a defense. When they ran into Jones, they blocked the road. Then one of the free state men accidentally fired off his gun. The free state group called out to Branson to join them, but Branson refused because he was afraid that he would be shot by Jones and his men. One of the vigilantes, a lawyer named Essin Wood, responded by calling out, quote, let them shoot and be damned, we can shoot too. So Branson rode over to the free staters and Jones followed, telling them that he had a warrant for Branson's arrest, but he refused to show it to Wood who claimed that Branson was his client, which was news to Branson. This standoff would end anti-climatically as Jones would eventually back off. Branson was escorted to Lawrence where the citizens organized a committee of safety to protect him and the rest of the city. Their worries were justified as Sheriff Jones immediately notified the governor of the exaggeratedly large body of vigilante free staters. So Governor Shannon called on the territorial militia to back Jones up against this, quote, unquote, armed band of lawless men. Missourians heeded the governor's call and as many as a thousand men assembled in Kansas as H. Miles Moore described it, quote, all armed and determined to burn Lawrence. The death of Charles Dowd would turn out to have escalated the tensions in Kansas from election fraud to a small-scale civil war and we will cover the events that we'll follow in the next episode. For more content like this, visit mesus.org.


Alright, what's going on? This is court King's four box picker team four. Thanks everybody for getting in randomizing the pelicans in this one after Nine times name on top gets the pills I forgot to add my teams in here again All right, so the name on top is gonna get the pelicans Do we already rolled the dice? Yeah nine times five and a four. I need to do the cars thing though I was gonna I wanted to go to California venture. I've never done that Dude, I need to do that cars land All right, ninth and final Joel there you go. You are the pelicans winner. I Think last break whoever had the pellet tea wolves one or one of the brakes Maybe the tea wolves are the hot team to get the pelicans. All right. Good luck. The pony porzingis Culver and Kendrick Nunn level three nice Hey word Kyrie miles bridges. There's hunter And a Marta Rosen orange number 49. I would hold out on that Tyler Boyd Matisse Tybal expressionist rally number 179 That is sixers David Baker and we have a Deandre hunter auto nice heir apparent Number to 125 there's Jordan pool Hatchimora maestro and Admiral Schofield level three Brennan Ingram Colin Sexton Kyle Lowry Zion level one nice hit a Zion card and I think all four breaks Definitely worth it to try to chase the pelicans in our court Kings basketball. We had the next case out five six seven and eight And we should have another one posted a moral too. There's number to 149 Kyrie Irving Although Teddy did go through a lot of cases tonight. So I don't know what we have left Jimmy Butler number the 179 for the heat. It's Jay Kenny. And here's a very nice one probably our best auto yet Tyler hero three of 49 Very nice Miami heat that's going up to Jay. Yeah, did they refund the season pass holders? There's a first steps Kam Reddish nice one there Kyle Lowry and Deandre Hunter level three The Russ Gordon Draguage Keras Lever there's Kobe white level one And Kevin Porter jr. Apprentice number 149 There is Hatchimora Art Nouveau relic 58 or 179 Going out to the wizards. That's Kevin Mendoza And we have a heir apparent auto for the Celtics Grant Williams Boston Celtics is going out to Colin That one's number 78 of 149 of 149 and final box. Good luck. Yeah, I feel like that's every stock Because the three months doesn't include the initial big drop because I think we're already past that There's Jerichova apprentice artist. There's a Maestro Zion very nice and a KPJ as well But yeah, they have the Disney plus If they didn't have that if this was before the Disney plus it probably a lot worse So there's that and then there's a Kevin Porter.  There's insert and there's an Anthony Davis red number 149 There's John Merant Art Nouveau the first John Merant card I've seen from this stuff court Kings Art Nouveau John Merant number 179 for Matthew Shearer and The final hit is a PJ Washington, Jr. On card Fresh paint red eight of 99 Charlotte Hornets is Dante There you go. That is the break appreciate everybody getting in see y'all next time jaspyscasebreaks.com more breaks on Saturday


Russia is gaining an advantage in Ukraine, the threat to Europe is increasing. Norway warns. Russia's forces are gaining the advantage in the war in Ukraine, Norway's intelligence service has warned. In an annual risk report, the head of the military intelligence unit, Nils Andreas Stensones, said its advantage in troop numbers and materials supplied by countries like China and North Korea meant Moscow was in a stronger position than a year ago. Stensones said Ukraine would need extensive Western military aid to turn the situation around. In this war, Russia is currently in a stronger position than it was a year ago and is in the process of gaining the advantage. Stensones told reporters. He said Russia could mobilize around three times more troops than Ukraine that Moscow is tackling sanctions better than expected and its industry can now produce enough munitions, combat vehicles, drones and missiles to enable its troops to maintain their war effort all year. Russia is also receiving military support from North Korea, Iran, Belarus and China, he said. China had not supplied arms but machines, vehicles, electronics and spare parts needed by Moscow's arms industry. Extensive Western weapons aid would be needed for Ukrainian forces to be able to defend themselves and regain the initiative in the conflict, Stensones said. He highlighted Kyiv's requests for munitions, long-range weapons, air defenses, tanks and fighter jets. Norway has, together with Denmark and the Netherlands, agreed to provide Ukraine with the F-16 fighter jets it has requested from its allies. Norway and Europe must be ready to take more responsibility to ensure their own security and that of their allies. Norwegian Defence Minister Bjorn Arild Gram said.