Aristocratic vs Democratic Republics (Antebellum Politics)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ค. 2018
- A republican form of government derives its power from the people, but the degree to which the people are involved depends on the type of republic. During the Antebellum period, the political culture of the United States went from that of an aristocratic republic to a democratic republic. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was passed in an era where laws were the product of dealmaking and consensus among elites. The decades leading to the American Civil War saw the development of Jacksonian Democracy and the people became more directly involved in government, resulting in a more contentious legislative process based on forming majority coalitions. In my upcoming lectures on the Antebellum period, I will examine key movements and events through the lens of this changing political culture.
Who's watching this video just for fun?
TheCourier me
me
Your mama.
🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️🙋🏾♂️
Me
This is why I love Mr. Richey! He is truly an unbiased historian. Thank you, Sir!
Unbiased? Lol wtf
He shows his bias in the first 2 minutes. Not that I give a crap, just found this comment as being completely false.
Is it a coincidence that the stock market was created in 1600 and then shortly thereafter the THE ARIAN STOCK RACE COMES FORWARD? The Eiffel Tower is a big A!!
There are no unbiased historians
US civil war reminds me of the Roman civil war when the popular general Julius Caesar centralized power by defeating Cicero and the Roman aristocracy. Cicero was against centralization of power and believed in a mixed government that combined the best features of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. He also agreed with Aristotle and Plato that the average person was unwise and democracy should be restricted because it leads to tyranny.
savvageorge Cicero wasn’t involved in the Roman civil war and was considered a moderate who upheld the constitution.
??
What?
Are u serious?
I see Cicero and Julius Caesar, the compromiser and the populist who were rivals, as more closely resembling Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson than Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln myself.
These long lecture videos are great!!!
Glad you enjoyed this format. This is a bit longer than most of the stuff I post but it helped me to establish context and meaning and to add detail to fully flesh out the topic. Glad to hear a few of you found the whole thing worth watching!
Excellent analysis. So many things I hadn't considered.
Aristocratic republic, best republic
Fight me
Aristocratic republics seem to avoid bloodshed better.
I would like to
Love your videos mate! Love hearing American history even as an Aussie, you make it interesting and understandable.
Also, Nice watch! AW-590 is one of my favorite G-Shocks!
Love the comparison between Clay and Jackson. My students love learning about the corrupt bargain and how it solidified Jackson's disdain for the eastern aristocracy. Keep up the good lectures!
Awesome
I think some good examples would be Venice and Genoa, or the other Italian trade republics.
Bryce quite late comment, but Venice and Genoa are bad examples as they were Merchant republics, meaning than anyone could "easily" get a voice as long as they were good merchants. Most of the other Italian republics were oligarchies on the other hand, so again quite not the same as an aristocracy.
Tho I get your point, meaning that the leader(s) are coming from an elite and elective elite as opposed to a democratic republic.
Very coherent and very well argued! This topic especially is important for enthusiasts of Latin American history as a foil to US history such as me, since lots of those republics' history is defined by the fact of those republics deciding whether they are aristocratic or democratic. (Hint, they tend toward the former for way longer than the United States did; one could argue that they start to become democratic republics only over the course of the Cold War. Mexico is its own story, though...) Bolívar (himself a creole aristocrat) had his reasons, certainly, when he travelled to the United States during Jefferson's presidency, for admiring the system of government then in place, but sensing that it could never work in South America, because the Spanish had deliberately kept their colonies isolated from each other, and they were therefore vulnerable to regional strongmen when the departing peninsular bureaucrats left a power vacuum behind: "Among the popular and representative systems of government I do not approve of the federal system: it is too perfect; and it requires virtues and political talents much superior to our own."
Thanks for that video Tom..
Enjoyed the video, only had his history. Have read some books about Washington, Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, etc. Knew some of what you were saying. But this gave me a better prospective of that period. I agree with what you were saying. Thank you.
Very interesting and good lecture, thanks.
Superb! Highly interesting and a point of view I had never expressed so clearly and concisely before, even though Ken Burns and historians involved touches upon this in his TV series and related book. Never so well as here though. As a Canadian, it seems to me the British (upon which we modeled our government up here) went through that transition over a longer time period but much more smoothly. I wonder how much influence the American post war model finally had in the Brits evolution...
" I had never SEEN expressed...'' . Sorry.
Thanks for the kind words! My friend Gerry, who I credited in the video, has also given me some material on the formation of Canada - specifically over the decision to go with a strong central government rather than strong provinces. The British have definitely had a lot more time to evolve but had their share of civil wars even with that!
I miss you! You totally helped me pass my test!
Brilliant lecture
Very well said, thank you!
IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO LEARN HISTORY, BY A NICE GOOD LOOKING MAN. PLUS YOU MAKE IT EASY TO UNDERSTAND. AND A GREAT TOOL TO REMEMBER SUCH A TEDIOUS TASK OF LEARNING HISTORY. WITH YOU IT IS SOMETHING TO LOOK FOR EVERY TIME YOU HAVE A NEW APPROACH WICH KEEP US AWAKE AND AND WANTED TO LEARN MORE FROM YOU. THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT. GRACIAS AMIGO 😊😊🙂
RENATO SANUDO you seem to have left your caps lock on
THANKS FOR THE KIND WORDS
This very interesting thanks Tom
I like the topic. Thanks!
Thank you very much! I was interested ...! Democracy is determined by the activity of citizens and their capabilities .... Good luck!
And that is scary!
Hey Tom I’d love to see more on these concepts of aristocratic republic and democratic republic. I’m also inter in the modern day applications, effects and examples. If you could make a video that be great. If not please point me to a good source for this information.
You might like the book Aristocratic Souls in Democratic Times,
This is easily one of Richey's most underrated and under-watched lectures, partly because he steps into such a sensitive topic. Richey supports longstanding claims that we can have too much democracy in a republic. Or in other words increases in democracy can subvert governance by opening it up to the will of the mob and capture by demagogues, something the Framers sought to avoid. This notion goes back to the Greeks and the death sentence of Socrates. Richey looks a this through the lens of the antebellum period - which is really the beginning of political campaigning for the presidency. He talks about this starting at 11:55 - quoted here:
"Direct presidential Balloting. An acceptance of popular Campaigning. Demagogues pander to the masses. Anytime I hear somebody talk about somebody as a demagogue, I say wherever you have democracy you're going to have demagogues, because you get elected in a democracy by appealing to the masses. And candidates who can't appeal to the masses typically don't get elected. Go through your presidential elections and look - especially in the 20th century - which candidate was more appealing and that's typically the candidate that wins. Certainly, going from JFK forward but popular campaigning appeals to the masses. Jackson certainly used it the 1840 election. “Tippecanoe and Tyler too!” The Log Cabin Campaign of 1840 and hard cider campaign (Harrison was the first president to campaign actively for office) and then there is an increased amount of partisanship and a winner-take-all mentality. Deal-making becomes politically difficult and if we look at our country today we see that that certainly seems to be the case. But it's really about building a majority coalition and winning rather than trying to create some sort of consensus that you would be more likely to find in an aristocratic Republic."
End note: Most of the literature on this topic overlooks, perhaps the most democratizing action since the Civil War - In 1970 the cloistered Congress - which had always worked in secret committees, was thrust into the sunshine. Nixon signed the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 on October 26th of that year. This democratizing action (increased transparency) has allowed for outside groups (usually the wealthy and powerful corporations etc) to capture the process as they now can attack legislators for the individual actions in committees. It has led to a soaring rise in campaign finance, lobbying and capture.
Thank you for this. This lecture is definitely one of my favorites that I’ve ever put together and I recorded it knowing that the audience would be limited in comparison to other more accessible topics that I often address. I’m glad to see that it is making people think about the nature of our government, as well as both the benefits and the pitfalls of democratic governance.
This was a good video, over all. It offers a fascinating lens by which to view our contemporary politics. It seems to me that George H. W. Bush was our last president of a somewhat Aristocratic air. And when his younger son ran for president in 2016 he might have easily won, if not for George W. Bush, who under Cheney and Rove had more or less made a wreck of things. But then the Republican voting base went for Andrew Jackson, I mean, Donald Trump...
Good video. Lot of gray area though, it is a definitely a stretch to place the cause of some of the events listed as the difference between these two governmental concepts:
*Dred Scott - This was a JUDICIAL decision, not a political one. It required the Supreme court to overturn multiple lower courts' rulings. You cannot place this decision in the laps of Democratic philosophy.
*Indian Removal - The Supreme Court ruled in 1823 that Indians could not hold title to U.S. land (again, a JUDICIAL decision), and many southern states were already in the process of developing removal mechanisms long before the election of Jackson or the signing into law of the Removal Act. This was going to happen in the U.S. under any form of government that might evolve.
*Bank Veto - The National Bank was a subject of debate dating back to our nation's birth, long before 1820, or Jackson's presidency. I suppose the argument here from the presenter is that because Jackson was a Democrat, he was able to veto the charter, but come on... there were many dangerous and corrupt components of that banking system. It happened because Jackson was a LEADER, not because he was a Democrat.
Would you consider a video on the Turner Thesis?
Thank you. It was particularly helpful how you explained that leadership of the country had originally been intended to be chosen by aristocracy rather than by the mob on the street. Like what is the ulternitive to democracy in a republic?
I will only add that the obviously negative connotation of the loaded term _"Corrupt Bargain"_ with which the Compromise of 1877 is known is a very good indication of the devolution into democracy that the United States had experienced by that time (and by this time). It is a stark contrast to the terms "Great Compromise" (during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 which established the equality of votes in the Senate and proportional representation on the basis of population in the House of Representatives and the indirect election of the President of the United States), "Compromise of 1790" (establishing the capital city of the United States in the District of Columbia and the assumption of revolutionary war debt by the national government), "Missouri Compromise" (broken when the _Democratic_ Senator Stephen Douglas and _Demoratic_ President Franklin Pierce passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act whereby the status of slavery in those territories would be decided by popular vote), and "Compromise of 1850" (which raised the issue of opposition from state and local governments to enforcing federal laws and federal constitutional provisions). When you think about it, much of politics of today is a rebellion against or a defense of most of these compromises -- especially those involving representation in the Senate and the indirect election of the President and not always by the same persons/parties.
United States - States, plural or singular noun is the question - ?
cool
Thank you tommy I got that five on euro ❤️
If you were to neatly eliminate the British monarchy itself, would Britain be left an aristocratic republic?
The basic bottom line however, is Washington wanted to, and became the center of power of the country. The states had/have power, but were now DEFINETELY under the Federal thumb after the war. The country is and has ALWAYS been run by people who can afford to run for office (whatever it is). The higher the office, the more money and the more backers you need (hence, the elites) to run an effective campaign. Nothing has changed in hundreds of years. Our jobs as voters, is to to listen, research, and filter the facts and the message, and vote for who we believe will do the best for us and our country.
I wish that my APUSH teacher was not rubbish at her job. We barely made it through the 19th century by the time we had to take the AP test.
Why'd you stop making videos?
Democracy is mob-rule where majority rules. But the majority is not necessarily right. When Moses was in the mount the people, the majority told Aaron to make a calf of gold:
[Exodus 32:1 KJV]
And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for [as for] this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
[Exodus 32:2 KJV]
And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which [are] in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring [them] unto me.
[Exodus 32:5 KJV]
And when Aaron saw [it], he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow [is] a feast to the LORD.
[Exodus 32:6 KJV]
And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.
[Exodus 32:7 KJV]
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted [themselves]:
I like Tom, but we differ on a few things. I am a Jeffersonian, believer in state's rights vs Federal, I actually prefer the aristocratic.
States’ Rights versus Federal and Aristocratic versus Democratic didn’t match up one to one and came in pretty much every combination. During the first party system it was actually Hamilton who represented the Aristocratic position and Jefferson the Democratic one despite the circumstances of their respective births.
Citizens who receive money from the government, either as salary or benefits, should be excluded from voting. Not as punishment but because there's a conflict of interest.
Elmer
2023 realizing aristocratic makes more sense
I think we should go back to a aristocratic republic
I think a mixture of aristocratic and democratic republics will be the best
Not me! I want to get rid of this biden character as he is destroying our country.
I think you specifically shouldn’t be allowed to vote
Now I can say I've made it.
You most certainly have, sir! How many Patty Points does one get for a shoutout?
This guy has no concept of WHY the South fought. He is full of liberal hot air and is an example of poor analysis of all the sides of history. But HE IS WELL PROGRAMMED. Godspeed the truth.
And from South Carolina,,,ouch!
@@AllAboutThatAfterLyfe well, well, ANOTHER RETRO RACIST.
But you're right. And it's all the way to the bone my ignorant brother. 😆
I'm sorry, Tom, but are you sure that the Indian Deportation can be considered as a "democratic" decision?
Pietro Vittorio Mariotti It was democratic because the majority of the people wanted it.
I'm not entirely sure about that. In my opinion it was quite a "tyrannical" decision. The US government decided it, not its people.
Tyranny and democracy are not mutually exclusive. This was a popularly elected government that passed this legislation and it’s not like it was met at the time with any mass protest or resistance.
Oh, okay, I got it. Thanks for answering me ;)
Yeoman farmers, the popular body of the Republics constituents in large part desired the land that the natives occupied, thus popular sovereignty led to the Indian Removal Act, given that the order acted in accordance with that popular bodies demands.
We did not learn from the greeks ... Aristocratic > Democratic
Who's watching this of online class!?!?!?!?!?
Can Trump really be considered a non-aristocrat? He comes from 3 generations of old money.
Jack Parker He is not an aristocrat in the sense that he doesn't appeal to "high society" and that he is not in his position due to his exemplified character and merits. Democracies eventually fall into tyrannies and plutocracies due to the inevitable centralizing of power, and the wealthy demagogues who draw the admiration and frustrations of the general public. Trump is the sign that we are in the late stage of a democratic republic
@Zol z On the one hand you are right, but on the other Trump is just a continuation of a trend. You can see a growing prevalence of "common man" language and campaign styles over the past few decades of politics, and Trump is a near ultimate form of this decrease in dignity and fraternity that keeps republics functioning. Both sides are going to get keeping getting worse faster, but at the same time you really can see institutional coups happening in the government already which only can get worse once it becomes consistent
At 5:40, slavery did exist from 1820-60, and yet no civil war occurred during that time. Why? Because there was no party that stood up to slavery during that time. Up until 1854, the Whig Party's goal was to compromise over slavery. 1820, 1850, 1854 were compromises between Whigs and Democrats. Abolitionists didn't feel confident that the Whigs were going to abolish slavery, so a new party rose to power. The Republican Party finally stood against slavery and its expansion. When it was created in 1854, violence started to spread into Kansas, Congress, and Northern states. Slave owners were known to be aristocratic. When the Republican Party was created, slave-supporters and abolitionists finally realized that a party was standing against slavery. Even though America became a democratic republic, it still had sporadic racist ideas, segregation, and colonialist overtures. Other than that, great video.
I support Donald Trump so I will just see where Tom is going here.
Oh we've changed a lot...so much so that someone like Louie Gohmert occupies the same chamber as statesmen like Henry Clay. 🙄🤦♀️ Embarrassing. And yes...Trump is the antithesis of a Madison as well. Please continue...
Trump is what this country needs. Whereas the Democratic Party has tried to destroy this country.
first