HBO John Adams: Thomas Jefferson Predicts the Civil War 

@southerncajuncharm you sure? After this scene he asks adams to leave the room because he wants to discuss something related to the cabinet with jefferson and hamilton 🤣😂

​@Luís Filipe Andrade you are right. Until the 1950ties, when Alben Barkly held the Position, the office was considered a merely legislative Office, but his successor Richard Nixon was accepted as a member of the executive branch. And it took another few years to implement the Amendment necessary to guarantee succession. Only some 35 years earlier, when Thomas R. Marshal was VP it was not even sure how to transit power from the president to the VP when not death but illness is the issue.

@@aaronleperspicace1704 shit doesn't make any sense he is the vice president shouldn't he be informed of what is happening

Stannis the mannis

@@aaronleperspicace1704 In order to play the round without showing his hand. It's called politics. Adams was the statesman to Hamilton's and Jefferson's partisanship. Washington was smart enough to utilize Adams' acumen without foregrounding his resources. Adams was perhaps wounded personally, but won politically.

Lincoln and Davis: Hundreds of Thousands

@@Kaiserboo1871 but my lord there is no such force.

@@Revick_Revas A lot can change in a few decades. It’s funny, literally the first year of the civil war was bloodier than all the wars previously fought.

@@Kaiserboo1871 but my lord there is no such force

Hamilton : a compromise today will result to less deaths in the future Stannis Jefferson : fewer

poewhite because he’s an armchair historian

Historically, Jefferson had a soft voice and a stutter.

I would think Mr. Jefferson didn't sound like he was from the Ohio Valley, like I hear so many historical films.🖋

@@billycampbell854 Actually he would sound very much like the accent Jefferson would talk in. Which is similar to the Devonshire/Cornwall accent in the UK. People then didn't speak like now. The American dialect hadn't been standardised.

boredontheweb all historians are armchair technically

I mean Andrew Jackson saw this shit coming as well. I think everyone who signed the constitution saw this shit coming

@@Warsie funny thing is neither Jefferson nor Jackson signed the Constitution. Jefferson was in France at the time, while Jackson was about 20 years old in 1787 and not involved in politics.

He's quoted in Undaunted Courage ' Because my God is a just God, I fear for my country. That's all fffffolks.

@@floydvaughn836 Jackson hated his Vice President John Calhoun, "The Mouth of the South". At the annual Jefferson Dinner when the toasts were made, Jackson raised his glass and said, "Our Federal Union it must be preserved." Calhoun raised his glass and said, "The Union next to our liberty, most dear..." If Jackson had his pistol they say, Calhoun would have been shot right there.

@@scotttild it was clearly slave versus free otherwise the fugitive state laws wouldn't be passed (which did you know centralize federal power)

and after Hamilton dies...adopts a lot of his ideas.

"The Federalists will bend the knee or I'll destroy them." - Stannis Jefferson, 1791, colourised

Aaaaaaaahhhhhh! Thats how! I could not place him for so long, it kept gnawing in my mind. Why does he look so familiar! Lol.

"For the night is dark and full of tyrants." -Stannis Jefferson

Stannis wanted to abolish all the bars and brothels he's a monster

Na, you can tell this isn’t real by the lack of rap battles.

Yeah guys don’t mind me just carry on as usual

Thomas Jefferson is Timecop

at first they thought, "how does he re-load it with musket balls, with that circle of glass on the front?"

And who drank and couldn't hold the camera straight or frame a shot correctly.

He realized it was the only the United States would survive in the long term.

He didn't expand its power, he EXERCISED its power so as to keep it out of the hands of other nations. Jefferson had NO INTENTION of nationalizing the federal government. That was JACKSON, who acted conveniently AFTER Jefferson's death.

We're all men of contradictions

@Eric Huckaby So Jefferson said kept saying one things and his actions did another? Jefferson's "empire of Liberty" was mainly to prevent the British Empire from expanding even more by befriending other countries and expanding the U.S. in the south. At the time there was really no other way

Eric Huckaby Having Louisiana basically fall into his lap certainly didn’t hurt us

A lot better than Game of Shit-thrones.

Love this. But Band of brothers. Is the best mini series.

I love this series, Band of Brothers, Chernobyl ect. But Game of Thrones was my favorite series from HBO. I watched all of these series in my free month subscription.

Generation Kill is exceptional as well

Rome will always be my favorite.

That's one of those moments that makes you think on the universe. Like a certain Cardassian said: "I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't TRUST coincidences." That's like the cast of Alien pretty much dying in the order they died in the movie, or Rutger Hauer dying in 2019.

It was signed on the 2nd I believe

@@JnEricsonx probably bad alcohol

​@James-fw5ew actually, it took quite a while to get all of the signatures. 6 months.

Jefferson and Adams did, but the conversation here is primarily between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

Only in an international union, which Hamilton was sneakily trying to sabotage.

Scenes like this were always trying to reach a middle ground so you wouldn't offend any modern political thinkers

@@scotttild John Adams was a more moderate force, it was Hamilton that really believed in a centralized government.

@KC Jones They got the details with the teeth pretty good, as well as how infrequently they would bathe back then, but yeah, most actors don't want to roll around in mud before they go on set

@@josh18230 i felt the show crapped on Hamilton pretty hard actually

And the Dutch angles.

Hamilton was the best founder to never be president of the United States. Truly the star of the founding fathers…no disrespect to Washington, Franklin and Madison

I just hope British people have watched the series so they can get a sense of no matter how much we are shit on as a people. The true reason we are proud to be called Americans.

To a point…he failed to understand that corruption didn’t originate when government becomes centralized, corruption happens either way. Only keep government uncentralized helps hide the corruption by having fewer eyes on the people in charge.

@@m3driver245 Actually, I Think he understood all human beings are all corrupt to some extent. We all have the capacity to do both good and evil. it's part of the human experience. The best defense is to guard against fo much concentrated power for any organization or individual at any level. Just one man's opinion.

The slave owner that dared to pen "All men are created equal."

@@ericjohnson6105 Yes people in the past did something that present views it as terrible. Get the mentality of past bad, present good mentality because people in the future view our action what we doing today as socially , spiritually taboo in their present.

@@erikjimenez8671 Well said Erik.

He also predicted how Los Angeles, New York and the most populous states desire to abolish the electoral college to cinch every election, depriving the votes of flyover states. His callout of bankers hits hard, too.

@poewhite White men let them in, so...

@@blacktigerpaw1 you guys have already lost once. Don't push your luck again.

@@achintyanaithani889 Who is 'us', again?

@@blacktigerpaw1 So now you have less populous. lesser educated and lesser knowledgable states deciding the running of the country? Because Jefferson felt sorry for the "flyover states"? So you remove the value of the vote in one area and award more to another? Thus devaluing the vote entirely. The sheer absurdity of the EC is apparent. It should be always one person, one vote.. The EC is too corruptible. Too easily manipulated and its still a reminder of slavery.

Better than the Burr method.

Or progressive legislative change

Mr. Reading, I don't necessarily agree with that. Although I would much a formal debate forum attended by civil minded people, some times fighten words are fighten words and pistols at dawn are the only Honorable means of settling debates. This is especially what I would say to those who want to shutdown free speech. If you don't want others to express their right to free speech, then this is what it will cost you. Innumerable lives were sacrificed to allow us to express our right to free speech. If you want to take away someone's right to free speech, then you will have run the risk losing you own to do it.

I tried that, but the cabinets just sat there.

Reading Through History Thomas Jefferson is just like Marion Cotilard!

LOL! :D

Holy shit that IS smith

You sir are a legend

Holy shit it is Smith

That's Reichsfurher John Smith now

And it was Adams who actually said, "There will be trouble a hundred years hence; history will never forgive us.".

Welcome to Idiocracy. Where what most people have to say is dependent on attention, not intelligence.

It is of my humble opinion that the faculties for intelligent conversation is possessed by my own person.

Unfortunately, in 2023, most political discussions devolve into insults and screaming matches. Our own politicians look for gotcha moments to give the media a sound bite. Instead of intelligent, experienced people discussing politics, we get internet trolls and the women of The View.

@@RagnarTheRed-x5s The problem there - is that with the Government we have today - each side roundly deserves to be cussed out in the most vile terms - because each in it's own way is utterly vile. Back in the '60's and '70's things weren't that bad. Then Newt Gingrich got tired of being The Loyal Opposition and began playing hard ball. Things got worse from there. Barrack Obama was somewhat circumspect in his first term but after that - when he couldn't run again any way - his liberalism ran amok and he drove middle American into voting for Trump - or staying home. That's twice Obama took the Presidency away from Hilary. Biden is a complete Woke piece of shit - but - he has one thing going for him - he's not Donald Trump. Problem is - he's too old. He's going to lose to Trump unless the Democrats find someone - anyone - else. They better get busy though as they don't have much time left. If they can't do it - we'll just have to hope that Trump is in jail where he belongs. I can't believe my country has come to this. .

@@BobSmith-dk8nwso two men who are war criminals and one of ‘em who wrote the crime bill are still demonstrably worse than Trump? The delusion is baffling to me

But Stephen Dillane is better. A lot of his British colleagues are underrated. And by colleagues I mean his costars from Game of Thrones.

All the actors in his series were excellent. David Morse's portrayal of Washington was compelling, and I love the irony of Tom Wilkinson as Ben Franklin having portrayed Cornwallis only a few years earlier.

based

I mean they couldn't have lived half a century more even by today's standards

Yes, the concept of Manifest Destiny. An idea that haunts the US to this day and created a ridiculous superiority complex.

@@mbogucki1 Manifest Destiny is no worse than God's chosen people ;)

@@Laz4r96 everybody thinks their numero uno

Mostly a very shitty part of America’s identity though.

He sure is smart-

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler Woodhouselee

@@sce2aux464 That's why the states never formed a national union; but remained separate popularly-sovereign nation-states, where each state's people were supreme, and could _overrule_ their government's delegated powers at the last resort. Sovereign nations, by definition, are their own supreme authority; and therefore they cannot lose their national sovereignty, by the discretionary inference of a superior judge. Therefore only an express declaration of national union, can form such among separate sovereign nation-states. So any union among separate sovereign nation-states, is international; unless it expressly declares a national union. As with the union between England and Scotland to form Great Britain, which expressly proclaimed that “the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain.” In contrast, the American states never proclaimed such; so they cannot have done so by any outside inference.

Jefferson was not smart regarding economics, whereas Hamilton had read and studied everything on the subject. It’s not even close.

@@propheadj Bullshit LOL Next you'll say he knew more about economics than Adam Smith.

Thank goodness General Hummel wasn’t in the room! 😅

IMO, he looks stuffed half of the time.

The detail of Washington having his mouth tightly shut because he had no real teeth.

J2times2008: yep he's a walking dollar bill; you'd almost BELIEVE he suffered through a horrible war and survived Tuberculosis, Diphtheria, Dysentery, Smallpox, Malaria, Pneumonia, Carbuncle, and Epiglottitis... the fact that he made it to age 67 was a miracle in itself. They don't make men like that anymore.

@@JENDALL714 The series made a point of his dentures during his dinner with John Adams, and Washington has a serious problem eating while wearing them. But Adams also lost his teeth through some sort of harmful dental hygiene, shown where he's apparently cleaning his teeth with a wire brush and lye soap (it's never explained verbally, we just see his teeth rotting away through the series despite his practices of brushing his teeth, so it could be the use of ammonia-bleaching that was responsible for countless dental problems during the powdered-wig era).

Every revolution eventually turns on itself. Ours just took longer than most.

They knew eventually either the South had to catch up with the North and slavery dies off or what we actually got in real life. But all the wording was left in regardless since Independence and creating a Nation was the prime issue at that moment.

They truely believed that slavery was going to die out and as a matter of fact....they were right for the info they had. In the context of 1776 plantations weren't yielding that much money and slavery was getting phased out, and then the Cotton gin happened. Its invention alone was enough to shift the main textile being used in the US and Europe from wool to cotton and suddenly cotton plantations exploded, and with that so did the numbers of slaves and within 27 years of its invention the slaved population had grown eight fold and the plantation owners had a ridiculous amount of political power and influence, much more that they had before (in the Civil War pretty much every confederate general besides Stonewall came from a plantation family or made a fortune in the slave trade like Nathan Bedford Forest)

@@MollymaukT That's what's ironic about the clip. It was the "Virginia farmer" who ended up with excessive power.

@@keith6706 Not really. Those NY bankers had the power and still do to this day

Still fighting that

No, It was over slavery. GTFO with that lost cause bullshit.

Jefferson was not even remotely the only one smart enough to see it. All the checks and balances designed into the Constitutions are there because the others DID see it-- and Washington, I remind you, attended the constitutional convention, while Jefferson did not. Nevertheless, none of them were ever under any illusion that the government under the Constitution would be either perfect or everlasting. At the conclusion of the convention, Benjamin Franklin, upon being asked by a woman what form of government we were to have, famously replied "a republic, if you can keep it." He also said (of the US government under the Constitution) "...I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” No, to a man, they ALL saw the flaws of human nature, and the dangers those presented to good government and the preservation of freedom. None of them thought that they had solved this problem, and they all knew that the best they could achieve was to create a good government that would be the right balance of protections and compromises, so as to last a good, long while, and safeguard individual liberty as long as it did. And then it too would inevitably descend into corruption and despotism, because that's what always happens owing to the flaws in human nature. Jefferson simply weighed in more on the side of weaker central government than others like Hamilton, and thought that was the better trade off. But Jefferson wasn't always right, and the US had tried something closer to his vision under the Articles of Confederation, which made the central government TOO weak.

@Garfield's Minion No, my comment is quite comfortably close to the fact. Jefferson was a highly intelligent man, and certainly the most educated of the founding fathers, but he was also the most ideologically blinkered oand narrow-minded of them, and a lot of his ideas were, quite frankly, nonsense on account of it. (His idea to make the country's defense almost entirely on a citizen militia and a navy made overhelmingly of small, coastal defense gunboats was another, as Madison discovered when he tried to fight the War of 1812 with a military set up along those lines, and got chased out of the White House, leaving the invading British troops to eat the dinner that had been prepared for him, before burning the White House down.) His idea of permanently small, localized government in a permanently agrarian country whose cities would never grow too large was a pipe dream, and the system we got out of the 1787 constitutional convention was quite small and local enough -- for most of this country's history, the only federal official most people would ever meet was their postman. It wasn't until the "progressive" era starting in the early 20th century that this began to change, and given the prevailing ideological currents of the day, that was (sadly) inevitable.

@Garfield's Minion "We declared a war on Brtian while unprepared UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONS. with no sufficient military but civilians. We are 3,000 miles away. No invader would win this war." _And that was Jefferson's and Madison's fault!_ It was the fault of the small-government anti-federalists, who had an entirely ideological aversion to a stronger army and navy. Washington, who had led the army and militia against the British during the Revolution, thought poorly of the militia, and had no confidence in it as the lynchpin of our land-based national defense. He favored a well-trained, capable, professional army. So did Hamilton, who had served under Washington during the war. So did Adams, who belonged to Washington's federalist camp. Jefferson, who had had no military service in the war thought the militia would be enough. He was wrong. Madison, who had also not served in the army or navy, sided with Jefferson (he had formerly been close to Washington, but he and Washington fell out as Madison sided with Jefferson, adopted a more anti-federalist outlook, and Jefferson engaged in increasingly shabby, and frankly treacherous political attacks on Washington). Jefferson, as I also said, favored small gunboats for the navy, even though most experienced sailors thought them fairly useless (one British frigate had the firepower of _forty_ of Jefferson's gunboats). Well, as I also said, Madison had to actually fight a war with the weak military Jefferson had left him, and which, to be fair, Madison himself had supported keeping weak. The result was pretty disastrous. The war was inconclusive, but on the whole, the British probably got the better of it. The militia performed poorly (as Washington had predicted it would), but the small regular army units had performed pretty well actually. Our naval successes also came exclusively from the bigger ships that congress had authorized, not the gunboats. And it was the experience of fighting a war with a weak government, a weak army, and a weak navy that caused anti-federalist Madison to return to policies somewhat closer to those of the federalist camp he had still been a part of before he had fallen out with Washington, and to authorize more spending on an enlarged and better trained army and navy. As for the rest of your post... Honestly, your sentences are so ungrammatical I have a hard time even understanding what you are trying to say. Though one thing you wrote is easy enough to understand: "The idea of Britain, or other countries attacking is simply nonsense." Except the British DID attack! They occupied Maine, invaded Washington and burned down the White House, and landed an army on the Gulf coast that Andrew Jackson defeated at the Battle of New Orleans. I have to laugh at someone trying to tell me _my_ post "couldn't be further from the fact" who then claims something _that actually happened_ to be nonsense.

@Garfield's Minion "And Madison at this time, was FEDERALIST. He always has been." No, he was NOT. Do a little research for Pete's sake. Try cracking an actual history book. Try "The Great Divide: The Conflict between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation," by Thomas Fleming. It details the falling out that took place between Washington and Jefferson, _and how Madison sided with Jefferson in this conflict,_ which led to the end of Madison's and Washington's friendship. "''Jefferson engaged in increasingly shabby, and frankly treacherous political attacks on Washington)' This is bullcrap and you know it." No, it's FACT, and I know it. Again, do a little research. In 1791 Jefferson, _while serving on Washington's cabinet as secretary of state,_ installed Philip Freneau as editor of "The National Gazette," which was the partisan newspaper of the Democratic-Republican (i.e. anti-federalist) party, and both Jefferson _and Madison_ contributed articles under pseudonyms attacking the policies of Washington's administration. Did you get that? Not only Jefferson, but Madison -- Madison whom you claim was a federalist -- contributed articles to an anti-Federalist newspaper attacking the policies of the Washington administration _in which Jefferson was then actively serving._ Jefferson was reporting to work as Washington's secretary of state, and behind his back penning articles attacking Washington in the press. In April 1796, Jefferson wrote to a friend in Italy named Philip Mazzei, bemoaning the state of American politics. Jefferson wrote "“In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly thro’ the war, an Anglican, monarchical and aristocratical party has sprung up... It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England.” Unfortunately for Jefferson, Mazzei published the letter in Europe, and copies eventually crossed the Atlantic to the United States. Washington certainly understood that the sentence “Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England” was an obvious insult directed at Washington himself. _He never spoke to Jefferson again!_ Washington’s feeling of betrayal only intensified when he decided that Jefferson and Madison were helping anti-federalist James Monroe research his "View of the Conduct of the Executive in the Foreign Affairs of the United States," published in 1797. And after Washington's death, when president-elect Thomas Jefferson paid a call to Martha Washington at Mount Vernon, she called the visit "the most painful" occurrence of her life, "next to the loss of her husband." (Those words are in quotes because they are her exact words.) Shortly before she died in 1802, Martha Washington called Jefferson "the most detestable of mankind," and described his election to the presidency as “the greatest misfortune our country had ever experienced.” (Again, note the quotation marks.) Martha Washington had come to _despise_ Jefferson, and she did it, no doubt, because her beloved husband had been betrayed and insulted by him. This is all documented. You are spouting nonsense that is completely contrary to fact. You clearly have _no idea_ what you are talking about. You have a whole lot of clearly ideological presumptions, and a whole _lot_ of historical ignorance.

I think all the founders were smart enough to see it. Jefferson was very much a radical at the time. The argument was always about how strong a central authority is required to be effective. I think the constitution mostly got that difficult question right. I very much favor Jefferson's argument in favor of a weaker central authority. But it was always a fuzzy target, because there is such a thing as too little.

Hamilton was smarter.

@@briansheehan5256 no way! Maybe. Who knows. Who cares. I am smarter. And better looking. Lol

JFK said to a dinner of Nobel Laureates he hosted that it was the greatest gathering of minds at the White House since Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

@@JGlennFL OOF! 🤣

I'd say Adams was smarter that both Jefferson and Hamilton when it came to running the country. He was a more moderate politician who believed in a strong central government but also one the protects states rights. Jefferson wanted to go full on French and snub the British and Hamilton wanted to go full British and snub the French. Adams knew they needed both because the northern states relied on trade with Britain but France helped us defeat the British and knew Nuetrality was the only way to protect the colonies. Outside if the intolerable acts which were noble in intention Adams was a very good president

Or better yet Hamilton mini series and have Dan Stevens as Alexander Hamilton but with strawberry blonde hair

All of these actors are nearly 20 years older now. It would have be set quite some time after this series or heavily CGI'd.

Couldn't be made today, they'd have to turn Jefferson into a scenery-chewing cardboard villain because ENSLAVER.

John Adams actually said that, if the new United States allowed slavery to remain legal, "there will be trouble a hundred years hence" - he was only off by 10 years.

Shortly after Adams is sent outside, the discussion degenerates into a screaming match, even including the normally reserved Washington.

@@Desmaad Hamilton sure had a burr up his butt.

Not really

The Northern states AGREED to return fugitive slaves when they ratified the Constitution, genius.

Tom Evans franklin pierce was president when that bill passed.

DF In Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution there is a fugitive slave clause that states, “No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping to another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labor, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” Congress followed that up with a Fugitive Slave Act in 1790 and again in 1853.

Wayne Parker he took presidency in 1853

That was before celluloid film, so it didn't spontaneously combust.

Actually they knew exactly how it would play out, if states were not permitted to secede by some perversion of the facts.

Their only mistake was that peo0le in the future would see their words as gospel and any changes to them would be seen as heresy, making any changes llong and difficult.

They were part of their time, America was based on the British enlightenment's ideals brought to life which leapfrogged the Empire, but their system had major weaknesess like voting restrictions, the electoral college, and guns as a right, with much less flexability than the ancient parlimentary system to right the course.

Yes. Because they were educated in what was happening in Europe... Does anyone think the oligarchy there would just sit idly by and allow a perfect working class democracy to form without their hands on the money... We essentially live in a European feudal system.

They failed. The USA is at its end.

You got it backwards. Economics is always _subordinate_ to supreme authority, sir-- a fact economists will NEVER understand. Ben Franklin was clear: a penny saved is a penny earned; but the King's cheese is made with the PEOPLE's milk, and so 90% waste is no matter. Only AUTONOMY can promote economy, since otherwise IT'S NOT YOUR TRAIN SET! I am amused by Austrians claiming they "pwn" Keynesians with how their models are superior; while IGNORING THE BOTTOM LINE OF SUPREME CHOICE, which determines how the capital is disposed. Here's a short history lesson: The Founders said "as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do;" But then after they died, Jackson said that this formed ONE NATION, and that disunion, by armed force, was TREASON; and the Congress concurred with his 1833 "Force Bill" which authorized federal military invasion of any state to enforce "national law." This meant that the federal government, not the states or their peoples, was now supreme; and so economics was irrelevant, since the king could do no wrong; and his cheese could not be wasted, as it was his MILK as well. Savvy?

Jefferson would've hated Lincoln. Lincoln was the tyrant that Jefferson warned about. Lincoln only freed the slaves because the abolitionists threatened to split the vote in 1862 if he didn't. Lincoln was terrified that if the Democrats took back power that he would be executed for crimes against humanity.

Had the Southern States aligned with the British, they would have begun a second revolution thirty years earlier. The British abolished slavery in 1834.

Very intelligent observation

Jefferson wrote a very direct section accusing the British of being responsible for slavery (and it was bad). It was removed, because the rest of the Southern delegates would not vote for the Declaration if it was there. Jefferson was not in charge, once he wrote the draft Declaration, the Convention was.

Because they threaten the hegemony of the plantocracy.

Also because he saw Reagan coming (or someone like Reagan). Post-1980 we have full corporate ownership of government. I want it removed and replaced with a republic.

“Meanwhile I’ll chill in Monticello with my ultra-rich plantation friends who have the hegemony of politics in the South” Thomas Jefferson, probably

"We be cold chillin' down in Virginia." -- Thomas Jefferson

Ok maybe you guys are right, guess we better throw the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in the trash and let the corporations govern us.

And that's why I am a proud Hamiltonian.

His alternative was a weak federal government with state government picking up the slack. The constitution being the primary set of federal rules and other things such as drugs or guns or gambling or such being up to the states to figure out. The weakness to this is what Adams says in the clip, that the American Union as a whole would be much weaker, that is to say the Union itself, not the combined political power of all states, which would be the same. The advantage is that Americans can basically choose what set of laws they’d like and live in that state, a concept almost certain to afford greater freedoms than a strong federal government. It’s in many ways an extension of the old power balance between freedom and security. An interesting counter argument to this entire dichotomy is slavery. Say either the federal government or their state governments could have chosen to outlaw slavery. Well obviously the federal government doing this would increase freedoms for enslaved people far more than a few states doing it and a few states not doing it. You could argue the same for abortion etc, things it is societally unclear, at least at the time, as to which constitutes the freer society (right to own slaves vs right to not be enslaved, right to life versus right to bodily autonomy). In this case, a strong federal government is better outright, but only if it happens to agree with you on everything.

Secession is NOT Civil War. The Constitution did NOT create an independent sovereign state, OR make the states dependent sovereign states of it. When Adams becomes president, he tears Hamilton a new asshole over even THINKING of arresting secessionists.

Tom Evans Secession is not in and of itself Civil War but a serious attempt at secession forces the President to act with at least the threat of force to keep the Union together as the President takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution and the country must be kept together in order to preserve the Constitution. If states are free to leave whenever they want to for any reason than the Constitution is meaningless.

Indeed.

Wait, this isn't live footage?

@@Deagnetic Of course not, dummy. It's archive footage.

The *first* First Kitty :P

See....his whole face hurt. A lot. Constantly. For years. Like..a fucking lot.

@@Adamdidit Yeah, his entire mouth was basically a rotten mess of dead teeth and fake ones. That's why he looks so miserable.

No.. his COUNTRY. As Jefferson wrote: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” The man was an ORACLE.

I beg to disagree. The 3/5ths compromise was representation of 3/5ths of the States population, not dividing human beings into fractions. While still abominable, that distinction is significant. Many slave states had more enslaved people than free people. The compromise was 60% of the population, and not declaring other human beings 60% of a person.

@@af6456 that's a strawman argument.

With a bill of rights that's actually respected by the federal government, unlike what we have today, a bill of rights trampled on by the federal government. IMO the anti-federalists were smarter and thought further ahead than the federalists. The federalists didnt think we would need a bill of rights in our Constitution.

@@neowolf09 Because the Constitution itself is a "bill of rights." Why bother writing down "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" when the Constitution already delegates no such power to the Federal Government to do so? Anti-Federalists preferred weak confederation and feared a unitary national government. The Federalists, wanted a Federation.

To hell with the states, they’re nothing but disgusting cesspools of regression and theocratic sentiment

It was both economics and slavery. Both are intertwined. South states economy depended on the exploitation of black slaves, without it, the plantation economy would collapse. Americans inherited slavery from their counterparts the English. Only with the help of the industrial revolution and a civil war could slavery be abolished.

@@enriquemoran9094 So, in other words? : The North wanted slavery ended, economics be damned. The South wanted secure economics, slaves be damned.

The civil war was started because of basically what jefferson was saying.. Is that the south didn't want a central government dictating to them what to do in their own individual States.. The southern states felt that each State should govern themselves and not a central government telling them what to do.. Slavery was an issue but it was not the cause of the Civil War..

Check out Glenn becks recent interview on Dave rubins podcast, he has the original declaration before the changes were made. In the original, Jefferson lays out and defines slavery, and the king using the U.S. land to sell foreigners as property, as being amongst the biggest reasons for the war, 3 or 4 states wouldnt have it though, as they benefited too well from slavery, so changes were made and they took slavery out. If you check it out, its Rubins podcast, not Becks, Glenn is the guest on Daves show.

Except slavery was still legal in all the northern states until the early 1800s and it wasn’t even burned in New York until either the late 1820s or the early 1830s after Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had already died

Would you so easily dismiss the plight of the poor slave plantation owners? 🤣

Yeah it does, Jefferson’s point is that all the power and money being in the north federally will lead to the north forcing the southerners to pay taxes to be used for the north’s expenses and thus resentment and perhaps more from the southerners will naturally follow, of course that wasn’t the only factor that caused the civil war but it’s unarguable that the south losing their power federally was a clear factor in their rebellion

@@kurtwagner350 "the north forcing the southerners to pay taxes to be used for the north’s expenses" Complete fabrication, never happened. Hell, the tax code that was in place at the time (Tariff of 1857) was written by a Virginia senator, historically low in taxes, and received bipartisan support. "the south losing their power federally" the south didn't lose federal power. One could argue that they always lacked it, to an extent, by virtual of having fewer people and less money, but it's not a situation that worsened over time. The idea that 30% of the population should have half the power was asinine, anyway. Also, the Civil War was explicitly about slavery. Read the Cornerstone speech. Read the statement issued by each state as they seceded. Slavery, slavery, slavery.

@@jackcristo1628 quite frankly I’m not in the mood to go digging for pre civil war tax codes but federal taxes at that time went largely to paying off northern expenses, it’s also pretty lazy to say the tax code was low without any context, for instance how much was it? How did it compare to previous tax codes and who did it favor? Similarly bipartisan support is also vague, how many southerners supported it in comparison to northerners, not that it would matter according to your assertion that the south didn’t have much power anyway, and maybe most important IT WAS actually a situation that worsened over time or at least threatened to be, or did you forget that the United States were still adding states at that point and that those states heavily favored northern ideals, places like Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas and West Virginia and more the inclusion of said states would in fact heavily tip the balance of power federally and could’ve potentially allowed the north to impose laws on the south without them getting a a real say, although you are right that chief among those potential laws that the south feared was the abolition of slavery but that definitely wouldn’t have been their only worry, I also never said that the south should’ve had half the power im just saying how a southerner would’ve felt at the time and relaying that there was in fact more than one reason the civil war happened and it’s a complete lie to insist otherwise, and no I’m not reading some old speech’s or declarations but I can guarantee that they didn’t just say “Slavery, Slavery, Slavery.”. All that to say the discussion in this video does in fact relate to the civil war although I definitely think the title is misleading what hey what can you do it’s RU-vid.

Mya Xivilai 5

Dead, bought out, or too caught up in the redundancy of spreaking up in modern politics.

Whose corpse?

@@tristan733 smallpox victim I believe

The process has start somewhere man. If you got a better idea let's here it

No it simply states the rhetoric of people can govern themselves.

Division of power among the government and strong laws that maintains checks and balances not easily cast aside, aka the Constitution. However, the Constitution is only as good as far as the people themselves agree to its importance. A very large portion of America no longer supports vast portions of the document.

You need to look at Hamilton's statement in context. The whole point here is to create a government that is NOT subject to to the mere whims of imperfect men. And that is, in the opinion of the founders of America, precisely what had happened with the British government under King George and the reason for them declaring Independence. The idea was to build on the tradition of English Common Law, but eliminate abuses in the system perpetrated by those with an unaccountable and hereditary claim on power [i.e. the monarchy and the aristocracy]. That way, a more balanced political system could institute the rule of law and prevent arbitrary exercise of power by men, who as you point out are imperfect. Whether or not this is what happened in theory or in practice is of course up for debate. But I don't think you're characterizing the position of Hamilton and Adams fairly.

Checks and balances

Not to mention that slave was the half sister of his widowed wife.

The evidence regarding his alleged relationship with Hemmings is sloppy at best. Not to mention being ”madly in love” with her, that's a complete fabrication.

@@copyright8291 It isn't "sloppy" at all. Unless you believe genetic testing is quackery.

Seriously.

I've lived in a couple third world countries with particularly bad smells but the truth is you get used to it. Back then they wouldn't have really noticed it at all.

@@changer_of_ways_999 where’d you go? I’m sure since we were all born in this day in age we know the differences between smells. That would be cool to go back in time to experience what it was like, on top of experiencing the odor haha

Right?

Oh damn, the chain was never broken.

...Then it logically follows that private banking interests are in a prime position to dictate, or at least direct, public policy. Not a good place to be in, is it?

In our current economic state (corporatism), it doesn't matter. They are the same thing.

It had. This is just the typical actor lobbing it over the plate for the American public to gobble up.

Jefferson was a Virginian. The accent is not the same as the more southern territories That's true today and was true then.

Not yet. England and America sounded the same, until later.

@@LittleImpaler This is true, but it was actually England's accent that diverged and not vice versa. Both England and the Colonies spoke in accents that resemble the modern American accent at this point in time.

@@RollTide1987 That is not correct. While the accent used in much of southern Britain changed, it didn't everywhere. The "regional accents" in the south of Britain are rhotic, like American accents, those people would have sounded more like Suffolk, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire etc. American accents have been to heavily affected by other accents.

That's not what "predicted" means. And it wasn't Jefferson. Adams said removing that clause guaranteed there would be a Civil War a hundred years later. He was right on the act, the cause, the date and right on the money. At best, I'd describe Jefferson as conflicted. Also, I think he was more interested in just stopping the slave trade... which, seeing how Jefferson later made more money from breeding slaves than he did from raising crops, was more than just a "happy accident."

Jefferson also helped facilitate the profitability of slavery in Monticello. Once his plantation started turning him profits later in life, he stopped debating as an abolitionist. He even shared his profit strategy to George Washington and the rest of the south, which actually helped galvanize Southern land owners, who a generation later would orchestrate the creation of the Confederacy.

@@MrDEtheridge Completely false

Nailery*

Bo Jangle: LOL YOU talk about the Declaration of Independence? Try READING it: _We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor._ Now tell me: what part of "as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do," does NOT include seceding from unions? Because I'M sure stumped; and no, the Constitution did NOT "change that" with some twisted wording by illiterates who can't understand context. In 1816, Jefferson also wrote: "if any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us separate.’ I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture. " That's why "Mad Jackal" Jackson RE-WROTE HISTORY in 1832, claiming that "We declared ourselves a nation" in 1776, and that " disunion, by armed force, is TREASON..." because apparently HE couldn't read too well, either. This is why literacy is a prerequisite to democracy... and I mean REAL democracy of consent to government, not ultimatums of electing despots.

Yeah, I wonder if the war had happened later if maybe the general public of the south who didn’t own slaves or directly benefit from it might’ve been more hesitant to join war or rebelled more against it because of changing opinions on the issue of slavery, meaning maybe with more time the average southerner might’ve been disillusioned with the idea of slavery to an extent as new ideas and information spread to the south and the older southerners who were staunchly in favor of slavery died the same way the civil rights movement gained widespread appeal with the masses as time went on and the younger generation who hadn’t lived through slavery began questioning the point of segregation, maybe if that happened less people could’ve died in a war or perhaps a war never would’ve happened, although the slaves suffering would’ve continued longer so perhaps the war needed to happen when it did

@@kurtwagner350 There actually was at least one rebellion against the rebellion by the South. See the movie "Free State of Jones".

@@kettch777 I forgot about that

I am as well!

@@Truman5555 It's revisionism. The video title is trying to claim that the Civil War was a struggle between northern commercial states and southern agricultural states. The reality is that the Civil War was a war over slavery, specifically the traitorous states' rights to push slavery even onto the loyal states.

Speaking English properly honors it as well. You were looking for Their not There.

Yes, the real Ben Franklin was the philosopher and guiding light (and a full generation older) than his rebel cohorts. Love to see a HBO series on Franklin as a central character in the American Revolution.

@@llnotkoolj2041 These videos are stacked full of errors. I wouldn't rely on these folks produce.

@@llnotkoolj2041 As a diplomat, Franklin brought French support for American Revolution. He was a famous person for his time -- a rock star if you will. So did he have jealous haters back then? Yes, probably.

@@llnotkoolj2041 Please, please, please, this video is hardly definitive and comes off as the worst American history lesson imaginable. It's full of erroneous statements and wrongful facts.

In general the show makes everyone less humored than they probably were.

And SHORT! Thomas Jefferson was very tall and thin; but that's not a necessary part of a docudrama.

Probably should have learned in school... Shame.

No, he predicted DISUNION, which he always held to be 100% LEGAL; he would KNOW, since he was the one who WROTE in 1776, that " as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." And this did not change; as he wrote in 1816, "if any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us separate.’ I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture. It was JACKSON who claimed in 1832, conveniently after Jeffersons death, that the states formed "one nation" in 1776, and that "disunion, by armed force, is TREASON." Obviously this was an outright LIE; but it caught on with the warmongers in the North who stood to gain from rank imperialism and conquest; so they RAN with it, and Bob's your Uncle, they destroyed democracy.

You think Henry Ford built cars?

Tom Evans While Ford had his own problematic ideologies at least his workers were paid.

@@Rbills02 At least TRY not to be an idiot.

Tom Evans And as far as I know Ford never raped a 14 yo

Maybe on his wealthy estate, not on the farms of the majority of the southern US population.