I don’t blame them for not knowing all first past the post voting systems result in 2 factions over time. It’s inevitable. But we could amend it to the ranked choice option which would be much more fair
Not ironic at all when the Electoral College is determined by a majority and the built in failsafe is the Representatives in Congress also by majority. The system is very much set up for a 2-party system.
@@jaygarcia6338 or to the rational mind, from the dawn of time power has been consolidated in urban centers and amongst the ruling class of those centers and our constitution was supposed to eliminate this because its always used to trample on the rights of the individual. Then morons got involved.
This video is a testament to the fact that interesting history clearly and competently told is more than enough to hold an audience’s attention. No jokes, gimmicks or jump cuts, just concise storytelling. I love it.
Precisely, storytelling. Storytelling 101: Tell a story to influence the thoughts of others in an effort to impact a specific social/political behavior. Clear biases were definitely demonstrated, although some would see them only as subtle. For something that happened that long ago, there were too many projected insights into the "feelings" of the described persons. I'm pretty sure I didn't see any reference to any documents verifying fears. I am also pretty sure no one alive today was alive back then as well. I'm not saying specific events didn't happen, or that things didn't happen specific ways. I'm just pointing out the underlying faults of storytelling.
@@exisfohdr3904 Sure, but all history is storytelling. Historians make inferences based on incomplete knowledge and, where they place the events in a greater context, their own prejudices seep into the process as well. But I don’t think that’s necessarily cynical, certainly not in this instance, or makes history generally any less important or enjoyable to learn about.
@Marcus Halberstram the more enjoyable or entertaining something is, the more embellishments were likely used; making the overall experience less about knowledge, and more about influence.
@@exisfohdr3904 There comes a point where you’re so committed to pure historic information that even engaging with historians is pointless and you should just consult primary sources.
Hi, there, Non-American here. The history of the American Revolution and the formation of the United States as a unified country will never cease to fascinate me. I come from a country that has had two dozen constitutions since its inception in 1811. I can't even begin to imagine the level of wisdom, legislative knowledge, and ethical standards the Framers must have had to come up with *a single constitution and a whole government system* from scratch and both still hold up today. It just blows my mind. Thank you so much for this video. I don't remember ever seeing a clearer explanation of the separation of powers and the election system.
It’s incredible! It was during the enlightenment period, so there were definitely many intelligent men who understood and considered philosophies from different nations. The framers of the Constitution really knew how to lead. And, they had something unique: knowledge of what they *didn’t* want. They had just broken off from a tyranny, so the founding fathers ensured that this new government had balanced powers with democratic inclusion. One strength of the Constitution is actually its flexibility. Some rules are vague to allow courts to interpret as necessary. This works to be interpreted to fit specific needs and morals of various time periods. Of course, it couldn’t have been perfect. Many amendments have been made since, some due to foundational weaknesses, some due to cultural shifts in ideology. It is neat, though, how the Constitution is damn short in relation to the constitutions of other countries. Merely 4 pages.
According to his bio, he's taught at the university level for a decade. He also did his PhD, during which he probably also taught some classes. He has a lot of experience.
I maintain that John Adams, even perhaps over George Washington, was the sole founding father who truly "got" that the US Constitution and our democracy were finite and who truly spent most of his life attempting to reason his way into a better system of government than the one his family left in England and that he helped create here. I'm devastated for him too!
@@whittneykelly7220 The US constitution as finite? That would be awful. Of course we need amendments, otherwise slavery would still be legal, for example. These people could not fathom what modern society would look like, or it's requirements.
John Adams....I really dislike his authoritarianism concerning his legislations allowing him to imprison "critical members of the free press" and immigrants. In my unimportant opinion...his Son was the greatest gift he gave America. And of course him defending the Brits when he knew (thru his radicalized brother) how certain people would look at him as "British" apologist. But his core principle of trying to copy the British Christian Monarchy and their government make him anything but flexible or progressive. He was the original conservative that wanted Washington to be addressed as "Excellency" by the House/Senate....of course the Anti Federalists went bonkers and voted the idea down.
@@Raydensheraj It was not _his_ legislation. The President doesn't create legislation, the Congress does, and they are the ones who passed the acts, and John Adams was very reluctant to sign them, and delayed, but was eventually pressured into doing so.
This is perhaps the finest video I have seen describing the "birthing pains" of the American electoral college. Aside from being amazingly concise and informative, this dude has an excellent radio voice.
@@user-bl7em8sx6oif one party can't actually sell itself to part of the population to push over the 50% mark in the popular vote then it should be forced to, to then actually appeal to the people
Glad to know that politics was just as conniving, strategic, and "messy" back then as it is today. I sort of figured it had to have been, but rarely have I heard anyone go into the details like this.
@@multivision3646 Unfortunately, yes. Rules must be robust enough to disincentivize too much strategizing. How to do that is clearly that difficult part, as we can see centuries later.
@@multivision3646 probably not possible while keeping the government functional. We could do better though. Cutting corporations out of campaign funding would be a nice step. Would like to see term limits on Congress and and a change to the presidential term. 1, 6 year term for a president, no chance at reelection no bullshitting or getting cold feet or doing crazy shit to get reelected. Supreme court should also probably not be a lifetime appointment
@@multivision3646 it's not human nature. If that was the case they would have allowed everyone to vote during this election. Unfortunately they only allowed those who were already benefiting from the system to vote... Check out shays rebellion. It was a simple tax revolt (propaganda in America goes away back) that escalated after Massachusetts government turned a blind eye to citizens concerns (like them losing their land because of unbearable taxation...) George Washington actually held the opinion that this revolt needed to be stopped because movements pointing out the flaw inherent in the system tend to gain traction among the public... youll also find Massachusetts hired a private army to suppress the tax revolt since the the governor (James Bowdoin) couldn't get militia due to the articles of confederation. Oh and you'll notice ratification talks (introduction of big government/centralized power) began the same year as shays rebellion (tax revolt) 1787. Edit: and a few years after ratification was finalized you'll find one man now had the power to fall up armed men at a moments notice. Which George Washington used during the whiskey rebellion (another tax revolt.)
We have an insane system, but the amount of forethought that the founding fathers put into the plan, without knowing what the future looked like, is admirable.
i really did not expect to watch the whole video, but the way you tell this story is so enticing. it’s not flashy or too exciting, but it really holds on to your attention and is concise and well comunicated.
As an Austrian, this was quite interesting and enjoyable. I'm still startled by the fact that Mozart completed over 40 symphonies before the US had an elected president though, I never looked at it with that perspective. Shows again how young the US actually is ...
The whole "USA is very young" is kind of misleading, but it depends how you count the age of a nation. If you count from when the current government took power, most European nations would technically be super young. Some not even 100 years old. Problem is, no European (let alone most people) would count it like that. Although, the USA never had this issue as someone pointed out. I also think the whole "Americans have no culture" thing is misleading too. I'm sure someone will laugh at this example, but American Football is an American cultural phenomenon. Almost no one else in the world cares about it, yet there are Americans of all ethnicities that watch that stuff religiously. How can you deny that as a cultural phenomenon? Americans also heavily "Americanize" imported foods. I find it funny when people complain about Americans "having no culture," but then in the same breath whinge about how we're "doing it wrong." Yeah... Because it's American now. Just look at "Chinese Food" and pizza. It's a bit ridiculous to deny that as part of American culture now when it has been so heavily modified to the American palette. I think Europeans just like to deny aspects of American culture because we don't observe it in a traditional way like they do. It seems fair to say American culture is lacking in traditions, but not culture. At least IMHO.
@@zionismisterrorism8716depends if you assume our government hasn’t silently been bought out after the Cold War. But I agree with your general point, sir
6:30 Thank you for putting Longtudinal History events onto your timeline. Seeing worldwide historical events really puts history into context and makes it so much more vivid.
@@premodernist_history Now let’s do a history of the Bill of Rights ( 12 were ratified, but oops only 10 filed? ) Many Americans have no points of reference, history of the drafts or the compromises that framers were forced to make.
His inauguration was just as weird, it was postponed. They made several Washington Inaugural Coat Buttons which are highly sought after. Some of them were made for the "false start" Inauguration.
As an American and History enthusiast I was surprised by how little I knew about this time period. Thank you for the very informative and enjoyable video.
I remember a passing mention from history class that the vice presidents were the runner ups but never on how much of a mess this was. The strategy and almost conspiratorial efforts to win this election is also quite fascinating.
@Alan Hagerty I agree with Jefferson. I'm grateful that the runner-up is not automatically the vice president. The president has to work with the vice president. If the president has a say in who they're working with there's more of a propensity for the president to work more effectively with the vice president
1789 was a revolutionary time in history. Something like a republic with early democratic features hadn’t really been done before at this large a scale. There was a lot of debate that lead to the system that we have. The Federalist papers and Antifederalist papers are where we can trace the concepts for the constitution and bill of rights.
not exactly at that large of a scale, but it was already done at a very large scale, by thte previous empire. yes i mean the roman empire. of course the usakistani empire has both more people and more territory, but the roman empire was also pretty large and populated. and it was the first democracy. the system you have was acceptable for the time in which it was conceived. today it's extremely flawed. it allows for 22% of the population to impose their will on 78% of the population.
As a history teacher currently covering the new republic-era of the United States, this video was very timely! I teach about how different the Electoral College voting system was before the 12th amendment, but never really thought about how the system led to the strategic voting that you talk about in this video! I especially didn't think about how the system affected the candidates, particularly how throw-away votes hurt John Adams' feelings! Thank you for such a thought-provoking video--looking forward to the follow-up!
Work for Boston media starts Monday. 1 man called us an enemy 2.24.17. Media. It started a revolution. I'm just a regular person in Boston media. Quincy Ma. City of PRESIDENTS #Boston2024
In the recently released "The Dawn of Everything", Graeber and Wengrow emphasize that, looking back from the present, historical events seem to us as sort of inevitable. They urge us to think differently, to think about the roads not taken or about what might have been. Videos like this show us that idea in action: nowadays, the US constitution seems for a lot of people like it was "manifest destiny" from the start. Nothing farther from the truth, as you have so clearly explained. Thank you for this effort.
It also gives one pause to think of whether Americans really would have wanted the results of a United States with a structure that looked much more like the EU does now, and how many states would have done their own version of Brexit at some point through history, leaving who-knows-how-much destruction of cooperation and common identity in their wake.
Very great point and I think about this a lot. Kinda like how he mentioned that NY didn't come to a consensus in time for the vote. What a disaster! lol. obviously wasn't supposed to happen and honestly, if I was a part of that I would've been doubting if this whole "United States" thing is gonna work. We definitely need to reframe our thinking when it comes to this stuff because it was just a bunch of regular ass dudes (extraordinary and intelligent, but regular nonetheless) that came up with all of this. And people that take huge risks today, not knowing if they'll work or not, will be regarded also as just "how things went down", even though it'll only be because they chose to do things their way.
Boom: False. All history is biased. Even when people are trying their best to be objective, they still determine which sources to use (and which not to) and how to tell the story. Some tellings are obviously more biased than others, but you should always be aware of and look for bias.
@@brianboisguilbert6985 exactly, he could have gone on a rant about how only white men could vote at that time, but he stuck to the main facts of consequence to the very first election alone.
This is the first video of this gentleman's that I've seen, and I've subscribed. I can't STAND history that's told with a(n) (obvious) bias. Of course, some will say that there is ALWAYS bias, but this guy does a good job of just the facts. Had he talked about white men and landowners having the vote, it would open up the door for bias, especially in the comments. Anyways, this video was more than informative enough without getting into details like who had the right to vote. Not everything needs to be marinated in social causes. And my mentioning of social causes doesn't mean I lean one way or another. I just want to learn without being exposed to opinions! I'll form my own options soon enough
@@dougo753 objective history is multifaceted and layered. The “facts of consequence” should include the realities of all people. It was consequential that the people who were allowed to voice their opinion were exclusively only white men, just as it was consequential who was NOT included. All of the information included in this video is legitimate, but that doesn’t mean that this video captures every consequential detail. The real world is way too complex for that! Race and gender and class warfare are useful lenses through which to study history for many reasons, one of which is that they can be a great way to study how power maintains itself in our societies. Could be worth exploring, anyway!
It's really sad that a lot of Americans don't know about the Confederation-era and that America was a sort of EU-esque collection of states after 1776. As an American, it's pretty humbling to realize that the Constitution and our Framers' ideas for the national government was made essentially by throwing stuff at a wall and seeing what stuck.
A confederation of states, which would still accurately be classified as a nation or country. The USA was founded in 1776 and henceforth has remained the USA, albeit with various alterations in the form of governance over its developmental evolution.
In a recent study, 1 in 6 American teenagers couldn't name the first president of the United States. More than 50% of the teenagers who didn't know guessed that Abraham Lincoln was the first president. Those same teenagers when asked about Abraham Lincoln didn't know WHY Abraham Lincoln was such an important president and what he did but they knew he had a statue and they had heard of him so ergo he must be the first president. They ALSO thought that Black Americans were "freed" during the civil rights era of the 1960s and THAT'S what they thought the civil rights movement was about. Not equal rights, not to stop segregation, no???mmmmmmn bbb hbut Freedom from slavery. They thought that Americans still had slaves in the 1960s. That should be all the information anyone needs about the current state of America and it's education system.
@@bradenharris8718 goddamn, it seems I'm more educated than most Americans, and it was all self taught, literally 0 of it was taught to me by the school and I had go out of my way to defy the schools to keep studying history and got introuble for it, I don't regret it at all, George Washington Gang.
I always read that Washington got 100% of the vote, but I didn’t know our system was so wild before the 12th amendment. This video makes me understand why the Election of 1824 was so chaotic
I recall being taught something similar, with Washington winning every state in the nation. This is only partially true with 3 exceptions. New York didn't vote for any candidate, Washington tied with John Jay in Delaware, and Washington tied with Robert Harrison in Maryland. Unlike today where most states have a winner take all election where their electors vote for the same candidate, the state electors not only could vote for different candidates, they almost needed to vote differently for the system to work.
Weirder, and much, much more complicated than i thought, even being well aware that history tends to be much less tidy than we tend to think. Great content, very interesting.
if you love america, you will love this. america isnt just usakistan. it's everything from alaska to tierra del fuego and nearby archipielagos. it's far more diverse than you might imagine.
Hahaha, I think I see where you're coming from, and am similarly amused. The irony of how we put on airs of being unpretentious in this way. And then the balloon banners and marching bands come out. Like, it couldn't just be an unceremonious collective clerical task. No, we need a GRAND COMMITTEE to meet, and then an EVEN GRANDER COMMITTEE formed from all of those, and a STILL GRANDER CONGLOMERATE OF COMMITTEES and nerdy old dudes in powdered wigs get all hot and bothered over it and need to step out for some air before they swoon at all the grandiosity
I love your style of explanation. You speak so clearly and plainly, and even define certain terms that other educators might take for granted. You made me realize that, while I had a fuzzy idea of who the framers were, I couldn't actually describe it clearly until you spelled it out. Very accessible presentation, while also diving deep into the history and logistics of the election! Quite enjoyed this, your casual, layman's tone mixed with your unmistakable knowledge and familiarity with the topic makes for a great video!
As a Brazilian concerned with election logistics in general, and Brazilian elections in particular, besides being interested in history, I came to the end of the video thinking that we have a lot to learn from how things were done in the past and elsewhere.
@@einzelwolf3437 He could've won. His attempt to buy out the people with last-minute social spending got him close, but it also blew up the country's budget for 2022 and 23. Like it or not, he will probably be prosecuted in the next 2-3 years and prevented from running for public office for a long time.
@@ct6852 According to a poll done six days later, 81% of the population was against it, and 18% were in favor (1% couldn't answer for sure). Even among Bolsonaro's supporters, only 37% of them were in favor of what happened. Bear in mind that this poll had N=600, so the percentages of approval may be even less, those were HIGHLY unpopular.
It's always interesting to me when history is presented in an in-depth way like this; it shows that many of the problems we're dealing with in the present day, have been problems since their inception.
Many of the problems are baked into the cake of tyranny. Check out article 1 section 8, the commerce clause, the general welfare clause. We the people didn’t have a say in the acceptance of the BS. It’s always been about them, the ruling class.
Most schools/textbooks simply teach that "everyone agreed Washington would be president" and move on. But there were a lot of interesting details that foreshadowed the problems with the EC and emerging party system that culminated in the disastrous election of 1800
I love this video so much. We have this tendency to project our current assumptions (or tbh the assumptions of historians at different points in time) onto historical time periods at the expense of the nuanced reality of the not-so-distant past. We need more content like this on TH-cam!!
This content makes me so happy. No theme songs, no jokes or thrills, just a guy with a great voice giving me great historical information. Thank you so much!!!
Australian here, and made it to the end. I think American elections and American politics are fascinating because of just how weird they are. You guys do it differently to everybody else, and there always seems to be some kind of intrigue involved. You're the oldest of the "modern" democracies, a category that Australia also fits into, so it's interesting to see how things were done before there were other, similar nations to base things on. It was all really innovative and new.
An Aussie gave me a good run down on your system. He was at the time a senator's aid/staffer/whatever you would call him. It's interesting you're parliamentary like UK/Canada, but with a few important features borrowed from the US constitution (but without adopting presidential democracy in any way). Like the Senate being equal among the states, having only part of it elected at a time; and it seems to have some power to check the government a bit, that the Senate of Canada and the UK House of Lords do not possess. This is, of course, assuming I understood him correctly.
@@supercolinblow Yes. Our constitution was formed in the late 19th century, and only came into force in 1901. So the framers of our constitution had the benefit of having multiple examples of different systems we could base it on. In the end we chose a hybrid system, with our lower house based on the UK's House of Commons, and our Senate based on the US Senate. Like the US we are a federation of constituent states, so states rights was a consideration. Like the US we ended up with unequal representation in the Senate, with less populated states having the same number of Senators (giving voters in those states disproportionate power compared to other voters).
If this tax deduction the Aussies and Rebel s both have, isn't at least queer 😏 501 C 3 . NON PROFIT. 🤔 THE WORLD IS RAN BY EVIL ! MOST CAN'T GRASP ✔️🔚
My great great grandfather married Susan Boudinot who was a niece of Elias Boudinot IV who was one of the 8 Presidents of the Continental Congress. Some consider them to be president before Washington. What Elias did for America is amazing! He was Washington's friend.
This was great! This is a great channel! This is what kids should be watching in school. Not the crazy stuff they are watching in todays world. I would have made sure I had this guys classes as many times as possible in college. Knowledge is power. Thank you sir.
This was great. Like most people who remember their history classes from college, the first half was old news to me, but it was done concisely enough that I stayed with it for the main show, which for me were the incredible details about New York and New Hampshire and Maryland and the Anti-Federalist plot-that-wasn't. Great, great stuff.
And the real conspirator and manipulator was Hamiliton. No wonder Adams distrusted him, Jefferson hated him, and Burr shot him (considering all Hamilton's scheming it seems inevitable someone would shoot him).
@@michaelbayer5094 he deserved to be shot in that duel either Aaron burr. He was a big pusher for banking too. The bank of united states during the early 1790s.
I am not an American, i am a Syrian actually, and i made it to the end of this video and a lot more on your channel cause i love your videos at first and i like your way of storytelling history. Please continue and keep on doing more. Thank you.
What is crazy to me is that only 40,000 votes by citizens for electors were cast in this election so even by 1789 population levels only a tiny percentage of voters participated in the election out of 4 million people. Granted only a small number of states had a popular vote at all. Still that's crazy to think about.
And i would imagine that voters mostly participated in legislative elections with the expectation that the legislature would choose the voters choice for president.
You had to be a land owner to vote. Democratic systems conceptually require INFORMED voting. That was how they made sure their voters were informed and determined competence. Crude, but understandable.
Excellent description of a complicated system. As a Canadian, there is much about the American system that has been confusing to me. This video cleared up much of the confusion. As was pointed out in the video, our system has Parliament elect the Executive, which in many ways means that we only have a two branch government, which gives rise to different problems. Very interesting.
The Framers were motivated to solve the problems they had seen and experienced directly. They had seen the problems of a supreme legislature under the previous government (the Articles of Confederation) and wanted to give the President some degree of independent power.
@@williamkrebs1212 In the Canadian system, since it is the leader of the majority party that becomes the Prime Minister, the head of the Executive, and party discipline means the majority party votes as the Executive dictates, it is the Legislative branch which is extremely weak, the opposite of your problem noted above. Hence, de facto we only have two branches, the Executive and the Judiciary. Except in Minority Government situations when the Executive has to be a little more deferential to the Legislature.
@@michaelchandler490 I was given a run-down on how the Aussies run their government, by no less than a guy on the staff of an actual Australian Senator. Thus, pretty close to UK and Canada, but with a few features borrowed from the US. Some people from parliamentary countries think that a singular President is "dictatorial" and a PM is more democratic. Without an offense to anyone I think it's really the other way around. the US presidential system is collegial in its own way, and Trudeau actually has some powers that would make Richard Nixon drool with envy. It's almost like, to the victor goes the spoils in Canada/UK/etc: the party that wins the majority in the House of commons gets all the power. In the US, the winner does get to govern, yes, but not without some difficulty, and still has to compromise with the minority quite often. A lobbyist who I know said that 99% of all bills int he US Congress originate with members of the House and Senate and the remaining 1% are proposed (proposed, mind you) by the President. In the UK, a Briton told me, 95% of bills that come up in the Commons are "government bills" and everything is usually vetted through the Cabinet first, else it fails. I cannot imagine a president of the US so powerful that he and/or his cabinet had the power to vet all legislation. That's not to say that the US system is in the slightest "superior" to parliamentary democracies or vice-versa. People in each country decide how to govern uniquely, and whichever constitution a country's people choose, they automatically decide to live with its flaws.
@@lynnwoodcarter3486 I have not. But I am enjoying learning actual history as opposed to the whitewashed way we learned about it in schools. And passing that knowledge on.
What a remarkable video. It is a great reminder that politics were really never as clean, quiet and civilized as people think. It’s always been a big messy business. As a Canadian I am always amazed at the chaos of American politics. Yet somehow it works.
I loved the way this was detailed and informative without any info that didnt need to be there. Honestly i thought this would have been one of those older videos that got tons of views but I was definitely wrong. You deserve more attention if you produce these types of videos.
I've been watching your channel since that time traveling checklist for the medieval period. This one was fascinating and gave so much insight to things I hadn't seen considered. I thought it was just a simple 100% vote from the electoral college to elect Washington but this shows so much more of the story. I love the small details such as the scheme to make sure John Adams wasn't accidentally elected. It is comical to see just how human the founding fathers were and how many mistakes they made. My favorite part was when New York missed the deadline to vote due to the disagreement on how they should vote. It's just funny to think how loosely structured the government really was at the very start of our country compared to where it is today.
I'm Canadian and I love to teach my friends and family facts about the US and Canadian constitutions. I've read them both, and I'm not an expert on them, but I did absorb quite a bit and there are so many amazing and surprising details in them both. And when I talk to my British friends, I say, "I love the British constitution so much that I've memorized every single word of it." They pause for a moment, in thought, then they reply, "But there is no such thing as a British Constitution." And I shout out, "Aha!" Then we discuss why a constitution is a good thing. (Hint: wars have been fought in Britain over issues arising from their lack of a constitution explaining the roles of the various parts of government.)
As a Ukrainian, I'd say that wars appear despite having a constitution. Especially if you rewrite them often, as here it's done (for example I prefer the first variant to a current one).
@@romankravchenko4736 Yes, I agree that a constitution won't stop a foreign invasion. But the war in Britain that I was talking about was a civil war. An internal war. That's the kind of war that won't happen with a decent constitution. Besides, the current Ukraine constitution is barely 25 years old.
@@kyletaylor4489 Are you trying to imply that the Magna Carta is a constitution? If so, you would be wrong. In fact, the Magna Carta was just a "Royal Prerogative" which is even WEAKER than a law, let alone a constitution.
Great vid! Really puts into perspective how 200+ years isn't even that long ago in the grand scheme of things since this is the same chicanery still happening in U.S. politics today.
This was super fun! It’s jaw-dropping to discover how much of my nation’s history is never taught, and just how much historical context hindsight bias has wiped from our textbooks and brains.
They did teach this in public school, but unfortunatly a lot of people sleep through it lol! My wife knows nothing about the Alamo and we live in San Antonio.... and I'm like THEY TAUGHT US THIS!! ha, some people just don't care to learn history, but prefer other subjects
Superb reporting on these inaugreal events for the fledgling United States. I want to make mention that your factual and unbiased reporting or lack of obvious retconning- all the common hallmarks of media today are delightfully absent in your program. Thank you for just sticking to the reality of the situation and sparing us a revision of the events to meet one's own hypothesis. Your presentation was refreshing and insightful. I think I just found my next binge playlist. Take care sir.
Random Belgian citizen here. I randomly clicked on this video not expecting too much, but I was pleasantly surprised! I've always been into history (of any nation), so this was an interesting addition to my general knowledge. Thank you! P.S.: I added my nationality because of the small edit/question at 21:44. Belgium's governmental system is SUPER complex, so I don't think it's better, but I also don't think it's worse really. (You should look into it a little if you're interested, it's insane how our government works haha)
@@premodernist_history Good luck and have fun with the mess that is Belgian politics if you do actually decide to look it up! Not one, but SIX governments to entertain you.
Wonderful to hear your viewpoint. My grandfather was of Belgium descent (French speaking), his father was born in Belgium and immigrated to the United States in the 1870s. I’ve never really understood Belgium - if Leopold was the first king of the Belgiums as late as the 1830s what was the organization of the country prior? At one point did the Dutch rule Belgium? Was it part of the original Germanic states? This makes me realize I need to correct my ignorance and learn the history of Belgium. Interesting that Brussels ended up as the seat of EU.
@Jon Holland the entire low countries (modern day Belgium and the Netherlands) were part of the realm of the Dukes of Burgundy in the 15th century. The last Duke of Burgundy died unexpectedly and left his realm to his daughter, who married into the Austrian Habsburgs (who had recently become Holy Roman Emperors), meaning they inherited the Low Countries. Then, the Habsburgs, through more marriage politics, acquired Spain. Emperor Charles V of Habsburg was the most powerful ruler of Europe as King of Spain, Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of the Low Countries (around 1520). He split his realm between his son, Philip II, who became king of Spain and ruler of the Low Countries, and his brother, who became Archduke of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor. Then, the Dutch Revolt or 80 Years War happened (starting in 1568), where some of the Low Countries revolted against Spanish rule uniting in the Union of Utrecht. Eventually (in 1648), the mostly protestant north gained independence from Spain as the Dutch Republic and the Catholic south remained under Spanish rule as the Spanish Netherlands. In 1714 Austria gained control of the Spanish Netherlands, which it lost 100 years later with the napoleonic wars. Redesigning Europe at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed, including the former Dutch Republic and the former Austrian Netherlands (and Luxemburg). Then to your actual question, the south was more industrialised and economically productive, yet had a marginalised roll in the politics of the country. So in the 1830s they revolted to proclaim independence as the Kingdom of Belgium. That's a brief outline of the history of Belgium (written by someone from the Netherlands).
I remember learning about this in 7th grade US History class and was extremely fascinated, in awe at how the whole drafting of the constitution happened. Especially fascinating was the War of 1774 which stood out to me the most. Early stages America has and always will be fascinating to me.
3:58 they didn’t think it would be impractical…they didn’t want the American people deciding their leader. They want a few pliable politicians deciding the president.
Just discovered your channel. Two periods in history that fascinate me: The American Revolution & the founding of the US Constitution and WW2. Thank you for this video. Looking forward to learning more.
History was always boring until high school when I got a teacher who made it come alive and interesting they way you do. She also inserted tidbits of personal scandal that made them more like living people of history as opposed to just being "ho-hum" dead politicians, kings, queens, famous generals, etc. Since then I became a history buff. Thank you, Miss Crago!
You mean the first 11... or 12, depending on how you look at things. What we refer to as the "Bill of Rights" wasn't a proposed slate of 10 amendments. It was 12. Their first amendment wasn't ratified, but still technically could be. Their second amendment was ratified, but as our 27th amendment. Their third through twelfth amendments were ratified as our first through tenth. Confused yet?
I had no idea the opponents of the system tried to undermine it before Washington even took office. That was a surprise to me. Great video! And great delivery!
This was a very informative video. I wasn't aware of all of the different processes the states used to choose Electors. Will you do a video on the 1800 election where Jefferson and Burr tied in the Electoral College?
Great vid! One thing this cements for me is how frakkin' lucky America/U.S. was to have a person like Geo. Washington, not just to win the rebellion with his strategy but the stature of character to literally unite the colonies behind the U.S. Constitution. For the last 20 years or so, i've looked at the ratification of the Constitution as the "birth of our nation" rather than the Declaration.
Absolutely. Without Washington it would have came apart. He has to walk a tightrope in his two terms and never lost sight of what his choices would mean for the future.
Rather a polyannish view of history. To be sure he only served two terms(viewing himself somewhat like royalty) setting an example, but All men have feet of clay and Washington is no different. Your schoolbooks were written by those who require public adoration of the state and mass compliance. Some further investigation will show how he was involved in massive land fraud schemes, or leading an army to impose taxes on the briefly free people of western Pennsylvania. His actions were self serving, as was the case with all men.
@@davidturoff8017 he didn't view himself as royalty. Many people accuse him of this because of his "creation" of the body we know as the "cabinet" even though it mentions no such thing in the constitution. But it wasn't because he was monarchical: when he was leading the Continental Army he would often meet with his top lieutenants like that, solicit advice from them as a body, and then make his decision. Other than that I cannot see how he fancied himself "king". Your statement about public adoration of the state and mass compliance via our textbooks is ridiculous. I'd like to see how you can back that one up. But yes, he had his own agenda and his own biases. You stated that yourself "...as was the case with all men." If all men are like that, how can Washington have been a monarch when he was like every other politician?
@@supercolinblow How is it ridiculous to say that government education was designed to create an adoration of the state? Have you ever heard of the pledge of allegiance to a flag? Where your hand is held over your heart? That doesn’t seem religious in any way to you? What of the great world wars. According to public school textbooks the U.S. intentions are somehow benevolent always on the fight against evil. No mention of how the Lusitania incident was basically a false flag heavily propagandized by the Hearst and Morgan media empires. William Jennings Bryan resigned his position as secretary of state because Wilson refused to convey the warning issued by the German department of State, because the Lusitania was laden with munitions. No mention of Allen Dulles helping to consolidate German industrial interests into Swiss ownership just prior to the onset of hostilities in WW2. No mention of F.D.R.’s fawning praise of Hitler and Mussolini because of their economic achievements. Did you learn of all the CIA’s drug and mind control experiments on innocent civilians? Or their blatant control of the media narratives through project “Mockingbird”? What you are taught in government school is that despite its faults, the government overall has the interests of the people as its core mission. If the past 3 years of the government’s attack on the ordinary people hasn’t disabused you of this notion, what will it take?
We need to get rid of the Electoral College altogether and go to the direct election of the president by a majority of the voting population. (All of this business about "swing states" is nonsense.) Every voter's vote in every state should count equally. Let's move to a genuine democracy. The United States is one nation.
Great video! It taught me a lot of things I didn't know about. I'm not an American, but my parents instilled in me a love of all things political and historical. Thank you for your dedication, and for sharing your knowledge!
Perfection. Clearly well researched (with citations!). Quality analysis. Informative. You even told us when you weren’t sure about something. This was like a university lecture. Thank you for running this channel.
A brilliant presentation. I am UK national and had imagined that GW was elected first president the day after the declaration of independence and not 13 years later. Or that there was no centralised government for over 10 years. I'd read the private diaries of some colonists, pre independence, and was aware that there were separate currencies in each colony and working out the exchange rate for trade was a nightmare. Absolutely fascinating stuff. Definitely plan to read more about this intervening period to 1789. Thank you for this very interesting programme.
Also not appreciated in the US - I think - is how UK held onto Jamaica and Canada, and how New Brunswick and Ottawa evolved as anti-states. I mean, George III's heritage lives on in the very name Brunswick, which is not an English town but an Anglicisation of Braunschweig.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. didn't really have an executive, as such. As Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, Washington was probably the closest approximation to a president for the duration of the Revolutionary War.
Imagine america during those 13 years before 1789, no taxes, no elections, no federal court. I wonder if people were anti constitutional because they liked the freedom.
How these rural voters forsaw a huge federal government not doing what the people want. We did trade one tyranny for another. It just took 200 years for it to come to fruition.
The fact it lasted this long is a testament to the genius of the founding fathers those cucked Euros and their absolute monarchies turning into "democracies" have fared much worse in the last 200 years and have lost every right they ever had.
I want to mention that although in this video, you talk about the Federalists' worries about the potential Anti-Federalist scheme as amounting to nothing, their worries were certainly not unfounded, as it could have definitely turned out differently. Hamilton and his fellows' efforts were very patriotic in their determination to see the US become a united country, and they should be recognized for them Besides that, thank you for this informative and eye-opening video. I find it so interesting that the Framers originally started the country with a system like that of ranked-choice voting, but that that system's flaws led to it being performed then done away with later on
I like your sourcing / refs. at the end--it gives a viewer the chance to review and ensure the credibility of the history presented. I think it's perhaps more relevant and important than ever for Americans to understand _why_ there was no presidential campaigning in the way we experience it back at the beginning. The first reason was that, back then, they thought that public character did matter for this office, and particularly because most of the time the position was going to be more representational of the country than it was going to be a functional, daily role in government. Today our news media, and therefore most who listen to them, assign responsibility for just about everything that happens in the country, even inflation, to the actions or inactions of whoever is president, but at that time--and long afterwards--presidents might not even be in Washington and readily available for many months at a time. The position simply wasn't envisioned as being that important to the country's day-to-day life as state government was, or even the Congress to some extent as they held the federal purse strings. In the typical rhetoric of the Framers, the president was supposed to be a position of humble strength and statesmanship--not someone who would ever be self-aggrandizing, even in campaign speeches, etc., as that would be unseemly, inappropriate, and a demonstration of poor character and immaturity in someone who was supposed to be fit to fill that office. Today, unless it gets to be over-the-top even compared to the stars of sports and entertainment, Americans tend to reward that kind of self-view and the behaviors that go with it. By the election of 1800, though, this was put to an early test in a knock-down, drag-through-the-mud affair with candidates accused of absolutely anything that any commentator on the other side could think of that might stick, and hopefully cost them some votes, much more akin to the conduct during campaigns that we see now.
Thank you for this. It just shows from the get go, the conspiracies, corruption, special interests and just overall complexities of human nature...making complexities for humanity through politics. Nothing has changed at its roots. The intentions are still the same. The good, the bad and the ugly.
It's funny you should mention that, because Thomas Jefferson, in particular, was inspired by Switzerland in how the government should be run. He spoke very highly of Switzerland. For context, Thomas Jefferson is the one who wrote the Constitution
The details are always glossed over about this period as "the antifederalists hated this so the federalists wrote the federalist papers and persuaded them with the promise of a bill of rights" so I love learning about the actual drama of the time!
Your teaching method and presentation style is entertaining, intriguing(makes me want to keep learning), and very well presented in a manner that works for my ADHD. I feel like I can just fall into your lesson and not want to stop listening. You're a wonderful teacher. Thank you for working hard to make these videos for us!
I'm so happy the algorithm recommended this to me. My video about this election is not nearly this good.
Mr. Beat for Governor!
Love that my favorite history Channel loves it as much as I do!
Mr beast!! Give money me
The most humble comment
Mr. Beat for president
I think it is a bit ironic that even an election with "no political parties" had two dominate factions strategizing amongst themselves.
Federalists VS Democratic-Republicans
it's how human being view life. this vs that.
I don’t blame them for not knowing all first past the post voting systems result in 2 factions over time. It’s inevitable. But we could amend it to the ranked choice option which would be much more fair
Not ironic at all when the Electoral College is determined by a majority and the built in failsafe is the Representatives in Congress also by majority. The system is very much set up for a 2-party system.
There was always two parties, the federalists, and the anti-federalists
Weve been fighting the same rural vs. urban, local vs. federal government arguments since our country's inception.
it's almost like it was flawed from the beginning 😭😭
@@jaygarcia6338 or to the rational mind, from the dawn of time power has been consolidated in urban centers and amongst the ruling class of those centers and our constitution was supposed to eliminate this because its always used to trample on the rights of the individual. Then morons got involved.
And around the world before our country was even a thought
@@jaygarcia6338there’s supposed to be conflict so that a middle ground is reached. Conflict does not mean flawed.
@@jonathanc3001wrong. Authoritarian communism is the only solution to this countries problems.
This video is a testament to the fact that interesting history clearly and competently told is more than enough to hold an audience’s attention. No jokes, gimmicks or jump cuts, just concise storytelling. I love it.
Precisely 👏
Precisely, storytelling.
Storytelling 101: Tell a story to influence the thoughts of others in an effort to impact a specific social/political behavior.
Clear biases were definitely demonstrated, although some would see them only as subtle. For something that happened that long ago, there were too many projected insights into the "feelings" of the described persons. I'm pretty sure I didn't see any reference to any documents verifying fears. I am also pretty sure no one alive today was alive back then as well.
I'm not saying specific events didn't happen, or that things didn't happen specific ways. I'm just pointing out the underlying faults of storytelling.
@@exisfohdr3904 Sure, but all history is storytelling. Historians make inferences based on incomplete knowledge and, where they place the events in a greater context, their own prejudices seep into the process as well. But I don’t think that’s necessarily cynical, certainly not in this instance, or makes history generally any less important or enjoyable to learn about.
@Marcus Halberstram the more enjoyable or entertaining something is, the more embellishments were likely used; making the overall experience less about knowledge, and more about influence.
@@exisfohdr3904 There comes a point where you’re so committed to pure historic information that even engaging with historians is pointless and you should just consult primary sources.
Hi, there, Non-American here. The history of the American Revolution and the formation of the United States as a unified country will never cease to fascinate me. I come from a country that has had two dozen constitutions since its inception in 1811. I can't even begin to imagine the level of wisdom, legislative knowledge, and ethical standards the Framers must have had to come up with *a single constitution and a whole government system* from scratch and both still hold up today. It just blows my mind. Thank you so much for this video. I don't remember ever seeing a clearer explanation of the separation of powers and the election system.
It’s incredible! It was during the enlightenment period, so there were definitely many intelligent men who understood and considered philosophies from different nations. The framers of the Constitution really knew how to lead. And, they had something unique: knowledge of what they *didn’t* want. They had just broken off from a tyranny, so the founding fathers ensured that this new government had balanced powers with democratic inclusion.
One strength of the Constitution is actually its flexibility. Some rules are vague to allow courts to interpret as necessary. This works to be interpreted to fit specific needs and morals of various time periods.
Of course, it couldn’t have been perfect. Many amendments have been made since, some due to foundational weaknesses, some due to cultural shifts in ideology. It is neat, though, how the Constitution is damn short in relation to the constitutions of other countries. Merely 4 pages.
Would your country be Venezuela?
It’s the first country that established a republic government. And other countries follow.
😂🫵😂🫵
@@stevebabiak6997Either that or Paraguay/Uruguay.
Anybody can learn history but not everyone can lecture like this guy
that's a bar
Think about choosing the giant cannibal man with wooden teeth, over educated scholars.
God bless America.
Extreme knowledge being displayed. Can’t be done without him having a full grasp of this entire era. He’s awesome
According to his bio, he's taught at the university level for a decade. He also did his PhD, during which he probably also taught some classes.
He has a lot of experience.
Unfortunately no there are very few people who truly understand history.
The way he seems legitimately devastated for John Adams not getting as many votes as he thought he would 😂
I maintain that John Adams, even perhaps over George Washington, was the sole founding father who truly "got" that the US Constitution and our democracy were finite and who truly spent most of his life attempting to reason his way into a better system of government than the one his family left in England and that he helped create here. I'm devastated for him too!
@@whittneykelly7220 The US constitution as finite? That would be awful. Of course we need amendments, otherwise slavery would still be legal, for example. These people could not fathom what modern society would look like, or it's requirements.
John Adams....I really dislike his authoritarianism concerning his legislations allowing him to imprison "critical members of the free press" and immigrants. In my unimportant opinion...his Son was the greatest gift he gave America. And of course him defending the Brits when he knew (thru his radicalized brother) how certain people would look at him as "British" apologist. But his core principle of trying to copy the British Christian Monarchy and their government make him anything but flexible or progressive. He was the original conservative that wanted Washington to be addressed as "Excellency" by the House/Senate....of course the Anti Federalists went bonkers and voted the idea down.
@@Raydensheraj It was not _his_ legislation. The President doesn't create legislation, the Congress does, and they are the ones who passed the acts, and John Adams was very reluctant to sign them, and delayed, but was eventually pressured into doing so.
I felt for him too 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Way easier to pay attention to a lecture when the speaker isn't reading off a script, but actually knows his shit. Well done
There are too many generic fact channels on TH-cam that have some hired host reading from a script. This channel's a nice hidden gem.
Agreed. Funny how i could care less in highschool or college but this was cool to listen to.
He talks so slow it sounds like he is reading a document with tiny writing
Well, at least where the speaker appears to know their stuff. Often times, the more entertaining something is, the farther from the truth it is.
@Austin , slow compared to whom? Ben Shapiro? His pace is fine, and his enunciation is perfect so he sounds good all the way up to 2x speed.
This is perhaps the finest video I have seen describing the "birthing pains" of the American electoral college. Aside from being amazingly concise and informative, this dude has an excellent radio voice.
The electoral college exists for a good reason. Every election would be the exact same if it was popular. You have one candidate buying votes rn lol
@@user-bl7em8sx6oif one party can't actually sell itself to part of the population to push over the 50% mark in the popular vote then it should be forced to, to then actually appeal to the people
Glad to know that politics was just as conniving, strategic, and "messy" back then as it is today. I sort of figured it had to have been, but rarely have I heard anyone go into the details like this.
It goes even further, all the way to Rome.
Yes always messy and strategic. But not always as corrupt as today.
Whatever you do don't look at a collection of German and Italian states that existed between 962 and 1806
He owned slaves, former President trump declared war on half the citizens @@konstantincvetanovic5357
That has NOTHING at all to do with AMERICAN HISTORY, read the room @@RegularCody
It's kind of funny how in the first election they IMMEDIATELY starting gaming the rules, lol.
You know I’ve begun to accept that this is human nature. The ground rules should be designed to accommodate the gaming of itself.
@@multivision3646 Unfortunately, yes. Rules must be robust enough to disincentivize too much strategizing. How to do that is clearly that difficult part, as we can see centuries later.
Yup the Nation has been dirty and corrupted from George Washington to George Floyd and beyond
@@multivision3646 probably not possible while keeping the government functional. We could do better though. Cutting corporations out of campaign funding would be a nice step. Would like to see term limits on Congress and and a change to the presidential term. 1, 6 year term for a president, no chance at reelection no bullshitting or getting cold feet or doing crazy shit to get reelected. Supreme court should also probably not be a lifetime appointment
@@multivision3646 it's not human nature.
If that was the case they would have allowed everyone to vote during this election.
Unfortunately they only allowed those who were already benefiting from the system to vote...
Check out shays rebellion. It was a simple tax revolt (propaganda in America goes away back) that escalated after Massachusetts government turned a blind eye to citizens concerns (like them losing their land because of unbearable taxation...)
George Washington actually held the opinion that this revolt needed to be stopped because movements pointing out the flaw inherent in the system tend to gain traction among the public...
youll also find Massachusetts hired a private army to suppress the tax revolt since the the governor (James Bowdoin) couldn't get militia due to the articles of confederation.
Oh and you'll notice ratification talks (introduction of big government/centralized power) began the same year as shays rebellion (tax revolt) 1787.
Edit: and a few years after ratification was finalized you'll find one man now had the power to fall up armed men at a moments notice.
Which George Washington used during the whiskey rebellion (another tax revolt.)
We have an insane system, but the amount of forethought that the founding fathers put into the plan, without knowing what the future looked like, is admirable.
@Minimmalmythicistthing is, shutty
Well part of the idea was that it wouldn't be some permanent bedrock for the future.
I seriously love how often you mention that people today take all these events for granted.
i really did not expect to watch the whole video, but the way you tell this story is so enticing. it’s not flashy or too exciting, but it really holds on to your attention and is concise and well comunicated.
Thanks!
Man I just gotta say you make the highest quality historical content on TH-cam I've seen so far. Never stop!
Funny that they were worried about it all being run by corporations and not being in their best interests. And now that is exactly what it is today.
As an Austrian, this was quite interesting and enjoyable.
I'm still startled by the fact that Mozart completed over 40 symphonies before the US had an elected president though, I never looked at it with that perspective. Shows again how young the US actually is ...
The US has the longest serving government. Other countries like Austria kept getting occupied or revolutions.
10 of the first 12 Presidents owned enslaved human beings- including Washington @@zionismisterrorism8716
US declared freedom from Britain in 1776- didn't "abolish" Slavery until 1865- nearly 100 yrs @@zionismisterrorism8716
The whole "USA is very young" is kind of misleading, but it depends how you count the age of a nation. If you count from when the current government took power, most European nations would technically be super young. Some not even 100 years old. Problem is, no European (let alone most people) would count it like that. Although, the USA never had this issue as someone pointed out.
I also think the whole "Americans have no culture" thing is misleading too. I'm sure someone will laugh at this example, but American Football is an American cultural phenomenon. Almost no one else in the world cares about it, yet there are Americans of all ethnicities that watch that stuff religiously. How can you deny that as a cultural phenomenon? Americans also heavily "Americanize" imported foods. I find it funny when people complain about Americans "having no culture," but then in the same breath whinge about how we're "doing it wrong." Yeah... Because it's American now. Just look at "Chinese Food" and pizza. It's a bit ridiculous to deny that as part of American culture now when it has been so heavily modified to the American palette.
I think Europeans just like to deny aspects of American culture because we don't observe it in a traditional way like they do. It seems fair to say American culture is lacking in traditions, but not culture. At least IMHO.
@@zionismisterrorism8716depends if you assume our government hasn’t silently been bought out after the Cold War. But I agree with your general point, sir
I am an American and I found this fascinating to think of the colonies as separate countries
They were still united under the Articles of Confederation, but it was a very weak association.
Like Africa. That's the closest I can think it being like
@@debbiewilson9712
I think EU or ASEAN, but ASEAN doesn't have any joint military agreement.
You can thank the 1860s for that.
You must live up north
6:30 Thank you for putting Longtudinal History events onto your timeline. Seeing worldwide historical events really puts history into context and makes it so much more vivid.
WTF is longtudinal history
Even if you spelled it correctly it still doesn't make sense
Excellent presentation and an aid to my studies on American history . Thank You .
So glad I discovered this no nonsense channel. You are very informative sir!
Thanks!
@@premodernist_history Now let’s do a history of the Bill of Rights ( 12 were ratified, but oops only 10 filed? ) Many Americans have no points of reference, history of the drafts or the compromises that framers were forced to make.
His inauguration was just as weird, it was postponed. They made several Washington Inaugural Coat Buttons which are highly sought after. Some of them were made for the "false start" Inauguration.
Wow. Very interesting
As an American and History enthusiast I was surprised by how little I knew about this time period. Thank you for the very informative and enjoyable video.
Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.
I, as well was surprised and intrigued.
Hamilton at his finest ☺️
I remember a passing mention from history class that the vice presidents were the runner ups but never on how much of a mess this was.
The strategy and almost conspiratorial efforts to win this election is also quite fascinating.
@Alan Hagerty I agree with Jefferson. I'm grateful that the runner-up is not automatically the vice president. The president has to work with the vice president. If the president has a say in who they're working with there's more of a propensity for the president to work more effectively with the vice president
"Those east coast elites are gonna ruin this country for us rural farmers," said American voters since literally the dawn of America.
I am an Elite East Coast son of a Bitch. Y'all Wouldn't be here with out us. I believe it was called the Revolutionary War....
@@hennebux in the 1700s the east coast was the only coast
And they were not wrong.
@@hennebux Sure you are Comrade.
@@hennebux The food which arrives to your market is not offerings to the altar.
Thank you for the excellent actually educational youtube content.
Thank you!
1789 was a revolutionary time in history. Something like a republic with early democratic features hadn’t really been done before at this large a scale. There was a lot of debate that lead to the system that we have. The Federalist papers and Antifederalist papers are where we can trace the concepts for the constitution and bill of rights.
It was a crazy time. They were definitely in uncharted waters.
Do you have proof.
@@stupideunuchs6513 there are no federalist papers obviously
not exactly at that large of a scale, but it was already done at a very large scale, by thte previous empire. yes i mean the roman empire. of course the usakistani empire has both more people and more territory, but the roman empire was also pretty large and populated. and it was the first democracy.
the system you have was acceptable for the time in which it was conceived. today it's extremely flawed. it allows for 22% of the population to impose their will on 78% of the population.
Not to mention that they saw a really bad example with what was happening in revolutionary France at the time, they wanted to avoid fucking it up.
As a history teacher currently covering the new republic-era of the United States, this video was very timely! I teach about how different the Electoral College voting system was before the 12th amendment, but never really thought about how the system led to the strategic voting that you talk about in this video! I especially didn't think about how the system affected the candidates, particularly how throw-away votes hurt John Adams' feelings! Thank you for such a thought-provoking video--looking forward to the follow-up!
Work for Boston media starts Monday. 1 man called us an enemy 2.24.17.
Media. It started a revolution.
I'm just a regular person in Boston media. Quincy Ma. City of PRESIDENTS
#Boston2024
The HBO John Adams series does a nice job of showing his heartbreak from that election.
It also kinda demonstrates the ranked choice voting scheme weakness in how strategic voting can impact those results
@@UhlansCharge yelp
You teach history, but didn't think how the electors had to strategically vote in 1789, 1792, 1796, and 1800?! 🤨
In the recently released "The Dawn of Everything", Graeber and Wengrow emphasize that, looking back from the present, historical events seem to us as sort of inevitable. They urge us to think differently, to think about the roads not taken or about what might have been. Videos like this show us that idea in action: nowadays, the US constitution seems for a lot of people like it was "manifest destiny" from the start. Nothing farther from the truth, as you have so clearly explained. Thank you for this effort.
One reason why I like alternative history channels here on yt
Very very true! It really puts things like current labor movements into a new light
It also gives one pause to think of whether Americans really would have wanted the results of a United States with a structure that looked much more like the EU does now, and how many states would have done their own version of Brexit at some point through history, leaving who-knows-how-much destruction of cooperation and common identity in their wake.
Very great point and I think about this a lot. Kinda like how he mentioned that NY didn't come to a consensus in time for the vote. What a disaster! lol. obviously wasn't supposed to happen and honestly, if I was a part of that I would've been doubting if this whole "United States" thing is gonna work. We definitely need to reframe our thinking when it comes to this stuff because it was just a bunch of regular ass dudes (extraordinary and intelligent, but regular nonetheless) that came up with all of this. And people that take huge risks today, not knowing if they'll work or not, will be regarded also as just "how things went down", even though it'll only be because they chose to do things their way.
Imagine the country today without a inflated federal government. Turns out they were right about what would happen 🤷♂️
I think this is the most succinct explanation of the first election and its results I've ever heard. Thanks for sharing this.
I like this guy’s style. No bias. Just straight history
Boom: False. All history is biased. Even when people are trying their best to be objective, they still determine which sources to use (and which not to) and how to tell the story. Some tellings are obviously more biased than others, but you should always be aware of and look for bias.
@@brianboisguilbert6985 Lol yeah, cuz that's just called being a good historian
@@brianboisguilbert6985 exactly, he could have gone on a rant about how only white men could vote at that time, but he stuck to the main facts of consequence to the very first election alone.
This is the first video of this gentleman's that I've seen, and I've subscribed.
I can't STAND history that's told with a(n) (obvious) bias.
Of course, some will say that there is ALWAYS bias, but this guy does a good job of just the facts.
Had he talked about white men and landowners having the vote, it would open up the door for bias, especially in the comments.
Anyways, this video was more than informative enough without getting into details like who had the right to vote.
Not everything needs to be marinated in social causes. And my mentioning of social causes doesn't mean I lean one way or another.
I just want to learn without being exposed to opinions! I'll form my own options soon enough
@@dougo753 objective history is multifaceted and layered. The “facts of consequence” should include the realities of all people. It was consequential that the people who were allowed to voice their opinion were exclusively only white men, just as it was consequential who was NOT included.
All of the information included in this video is legitimate, but that doesn’t mean that this video captures every consequential detail. The real world is way too complex for that! Race and gender and class warfare are useful lenses through which to study history for many reasons, one of which is that they can be a great way to study how power maintains itself in our societies. Could be worth exploring, anyway!
Thank you for sharing. Civics lesson are eye opening. Ageless principal.🇺🇸
It's really sad that a lot of Americans don't know about the Confederation-era and that America was a sort of EU-esque collection of states after 1776.
As an American, it's pretty humbling to realize that the Constitution and our Framers' ideas for the national government was made essentially by throwing stuff at a wall and seeing what stuck.
A confederation of states, which would still accurately be classified as a nation or country. The USA was founded in 1776 and henceforth has remained the USA, albeit with various alterations in the form of governance over its developmental evolution.
Anyone who paid attention in their high school government class will have a basic idea of all this. Problem is, most kids didn’t
In a recent study, 1 in 6 American teenagers couldn't name the first president of the United States. More than 50% of the teenagers who didn't know guessed that Abraham Lincoln was the first president. Those same teenagers when asked about Abraham Lincoln didn't know WHY Abraham Lincoln was such an important president and what he did but they knew he had a statue and they had heard of him so ergo he must be the first president. They ALSO thought that Black Americans were "freed" during the civil rights era of the 1960s and THAT'S what they thought the civil rights movement was about. Not equal rights, not to stop segregation, no???mmmmmmn bbb hbut Freedom from slavery. They thought that Americans still had slaves in the 1960s.
That should be all the information anyone needs about the current state of America and it's education system.
Funny enough that's how its gonna be during the 2nd Big funni
@@bradenharris8718 goddamn, it seems I'm more educated than most Americans, and it was all self taught, literally 0 of it was taught to me by the school and I had go out of my way to defy the schools to keep studying history and got introuble for it, I don't regret it at all, George Washington Gang.
I always read that Washington got 100% of the vote, but I didn’t know our system was so wild before the 12th amendment. This video makes me understand why the Election of 1824 was so chaotic
That was because there were too many candidates for one to get a majority, not because there was fear of the wrong person becoming president
1824 was after the 12th Amendment.
It’s still wild 😂
I recall being taught something similar, with Washington winning every state in the nation. This is only partially true with 3 exceptions. New York didn't vote for any candidate, Washington tied with John Jay in Delaware, and Washington tied with Robert Harrison in Maryland.
Unlike today where most states have a winner take all election where their electors vote for the same candidate, the state electors not only could vote for different candidates, they almost needed to vote differently for the system to work.
@@Rob_Enhoud In 1792, Washington did win every state in the nation, which by then was 15 (Vermont and Kentucky had been admitted).
Weirder, and much, much more complicated than i thought, even being well aware that history tends to be much less tidy than we tend to think. Great content, very interesting.
Super interesting commentary. Thank you for sharing.
As a Swede, this is fascinating. It’s quite the long process too. America is always very grand about things I feel
if you love america, you will love this.
america isnt just usakistan.
it's everything from alaska to tierra del fuego and nearby archipielagos.
it's far more diverse than you might imagine.
@@sabin97 I'm pretty sure he means America as in the country United States of America. Not the continent
@@sabin97 just let it go.
It's not "grand", it just makes sure all viewpoints are listened to.
Hahaha, I think I see where you're coming from, and am similarly amused. The irony of how we put on airs of being unpretentious in this way. And then the balloon banners and marching bands come out. Like, it couldn't just be an unceremonious collective clerical task. No, we need a GRAND COMMITTEE to meet, and then an EVEN GRANDER COMMITTEE formed from all of those, and a STILL GRANDER CONGLOMERATE OF COMMITTEES and nerdy old dudes in powdered wigs get all hot and bothered over it and need to step out for some air before they swoon at all the grandiosity
I love your style of explanation. You speak so clearly and plainly, and even define certain terms that other educators might take for granted. You made me realize that, while I had a fuzzy idea of who the framers were, I couldn't actually describe it clearly until you spelled it out. Very accessible presentation, while also diving deep into the history and logistics of the election! Quite enjoyed this, your casual, layman's tone mixed with your unmistakable knowledge and familiarity with the topic makes for a great video!
Your clarity of speaking is fantastic. Please dont change it. You articulate each word clearly.
The speed of delivery is perfect.
As a Brazilian concerned with election logistics in general, and Brazilian elections in particular, besides being interested in history, I came to the end of the video thinking that we have a lot to learn from how things were done in the past and elsewhere.
Let's hope that you win the next FIFA World Cup!
Bolsanaro won
@@einzelwolf3437 He could've won. His attempt to buy out the people with last-minute social spending got him close, but it also blew up the country's budget for 2022 and 23. Like it or not, he will probably be prosecuted in the next 2-3 years and prevented from running for public office for a long time.
How much of the country supported the riot?
@@ct6852 According to a poll done six days later, 81% of the population was against it, and 18% were in favor (1% couldn't answer for sure). Even among Bolsonaro's supporters, only 37% of them were in favor of what happened.
Bear in mind that this poll had N=600, so the percentages of approval may be even less, those were HIGHLY unpopular.
That was really great- you presented the material so clearly. Thank you & I hope you do more of these in the future.
I am blown away. Thank you so much for this video.
It's always interesting to me when history is presented in an in-depth way like this; it shows that many of the problems we're dealing with in the present day, have been problems since their inception.
I've always Said this to friends that disagree with the way elections work here "it's a bug it's a feature"
Many of the problems are baked into the cake of tyranny. Check out article 1 section 8, the commerce clause, the general welfare clause. We the people didn’t have a say in the acceptance of the BS. It’s always been about them, the ruling class.
Most schools/textbooks simply teach that "everyone agreed Washington would be president" and move on. But there were a lot of interesting details that foreshadowed the problems with the EC and emerging party system that culminated in the disastrous election of 1800
Probably the best short video on the subject available on the web. Thank you!
I love this video so much. We have this tendency to project our current assumptions (or tbh the assumptions of historians at different points in time) onto historical time periods at the expense of the nuanced reality of the not-so-distant past. We need more content like this on TH-cam!!
This content makes me so happy. No theme songs, no jokes or thrills, just a guy with a great voice giving me great historical information. Thank you so much!!!
Sus
So essentially USA didn't actually change that much. We just have different names for things.
The explanation is incredibly clear. And the graphics just put it over the top. Great content
Australian here, and made it to the end. I think American elections and American politics are fascinating because of just how weird they are. You guys do it differently to everybody else, and there always seems to be some kind of intrigue involved. You're the oldest of the "modern" democracies, a category that Australia also fits into, so it's interesting to see how things were done before there were other, similar nations to base things on. It was all really innovative and new.
@The Joker Nobody cars.
An Aussie gave me a good run down on your system. He was at the time a senator's aid/staffer/whatever you would call him. It's interesting you're parliamentary like UK/Canada, but with a few important features borrowed from the US constitution (but without adopting presidential democracy in any way). Like the Senate being equal among the states, having only part of it elected at a time; and it seems to have some power to check the government a bit, that the Senate of Canada and the UK House of Lords do not possess. This is, of course, assuming I understood him correctly.
@@supercolinblow Yes. Our constitution was formed in the late 19th century, and only came into force in 1901. So the framers of our constitution had the benefit of having multiple examples of different systems we could base it on. In the end we chose a hybrid system, with our lower house based on the UK's House of Commons, and our Senate based on the US Senate. Like the US we are a federation of constituent states, so states rights was a consideration. Like the US we ended up with unequal representation in the Senate, with less populated states having the same number of Senators (giving voters in those states disproportionate power compared to other voters).
If this tax deduction the Aussies and Rebel s both have, isn't at least queer 😏 501 C 3 . NON PROFIT. 🤔 THE WORLD IS RAN BY EVIL ! MOST CAN'T GRASP ✔️🔚
Cubone xD
This was fantastic! Please keep the content coming.. My 7 great grandfather (John Adams) is someone I love to learn more about!
History is always more complex that you think. Thank you for sharing this.
We need videos like this pushed everywhere
Good stuff. I'd be interested to hear more about the Articles of Confederation and the eight men who preceded Waahington as head of state.
My great great grandfather married Susan Boudinot who was a niece of Elias Boudinot IV who was one of the 8 Presidents of the Continental Congress. Some consider them to be president before Washington. What Elias did for America is amazing! He was Washington's friend.
This was great! This is a great channel! This is what kids should be watching in school. Not the crazy stuff they are watching in todays world. I would have made sure I had this guys classes as many times as possible in college. Knowledge is power. Thank you sir.
This was great. Like most people who remember their history classes from college, the first half was old news to me, but it was done concisely enough that I stayed with it for the main show, which for me were the incredible details about New York and New Hampshire and Maryland and the Anti-Federalist plot-that-wasn't. Great, great stuff.
And the real conspirator and manipulator was Hamiliton. No wonder Adams distrusted him, Jefferson hated him, and Burr shot him (considering all Hamilton's scheming it seems inevitable someone would shoot him).
@@michaelbayer5094 he deserved to be shot in that duel either Aaron burr. He was a big pusher for banking too. The bank of united states during the early 1790s.
Excellent presentation, thank you!
I am not an American, i am a Syrian actually, and i made it to the end of this video and a lot more on your channel cause i love your videos at first and i like your way of storytelling history. Please continue and keep on doing more.
Thank you.
What is crazy to me is that only 40,000 votes by citizens for electors were cast in this election so even by 1789 population levels only a tiny percentage of voters participated in the election out of 4 million people. Granted only a small number of states had a popular vote at all. Still that's crazy to think about.
And i would imagine that voters mostly participated in legislative elections with the expectation that the legislature would choose the voters choice for president.
Only a small percentage of voters were eligible (property requirements etc)
You had to be a land owner to vote.
Democratic systems conceptually require INFORMED voting.
That was how they made sure their voters were informed and determined competence.
Crude, but understandable.
well you had to be male, white and rich in order to vote....so it makes sense that only 1% of the population voted.
@@markthomas6703 agreed!
Excellent description of a complicated system. As a Canadian, there is much about the American system that has been confusing to me. This video cleared up much of the confusion. As was pointed out in the video, our system has Parliament elect the Executive, which in many ways means that we only have a two branch government, which gives rise to different problems. Very interesting.
The Framers were motivated to solve the problems they had seen and experienced directly. They had seen the problems of a supreme legislature under the previous government (the Articles of Confederation) and wanted to give the President some degree of independent power.
@@williamkrebs1212 In the Canadian system, since it is the leader of the majority party that becomes the Prime Minister, the head of the Executive, and party discipline means the majority party votes as the Executive dictates, it is the Legislative branch which is extremely weak, the opposite of your problem noted above. Hence, de facto we only have two branches, the Executive and the Judiciary. Except in Minority Government situations when the Executive has to be a little more deferential to the Legislature.
@@michaelchandler490 I was given a run-down on how the Aussies run their government, by no less than a guy on the staff of an actual Australian Senator. Thus, pretty close to UK and Canada, but with a few features borrowed from the US. Some people from parliamentary countries think that a singular President is "dictatorial" and a PM is more democratic. Without an offense to anyone I think it's really the other way around. the US presidential system is collegial in its own way, and Trudeau actually has some powers that would make Richard Nixon drool with envy. It's almost like, to the victor goes the spoils in Canada/UK/etc: the party that wins the majority in the House of commons gets all the power. In the US, the winner does get to govern, yes, but not without some difficulty, and still has to compromise with the minority quite often. A lobbyist who I know said that 99% of all bills int he US Congress originate with members of the House and Senate and the remaining 1% are proposed (proposed, mind you) by the President. In the UK, a Briton told me, 95% of bills that come up in the Commons are "government bills" and everything is usually vetted through the Cabinet first, else it fails. I cannot imagine a president of the US so powerful that he and/or his cabinet had the power to vet all legislation.
That's not to say that the US system is in the slightest "superior" to parliamentary democracies or vice-versa. People in each country decide how to govern uniquely, and whichever constitution a country's people choose, they automatically decide to live with its flaws.
No, you still have a three-branch government. But the executive is stronger in the US system than in a parliamentary system.
I appreciate your clear concise and meaningful way of communication.
I learned more about elections in the first five minutes of this video than I did through high school.
Did u know the 13 colonies were in fact brown aka African Americans
@@lynnwoodcarter3486 I have not. But I am enjoying learning actual history as opposed to the whitewashed way we learned about it in schools. And passing that knowledge on.
Sounds like you didn’t pay much attention in high school then
@@lynnwoodcarter3486what are you even trying to say? Lol
@@jonathanc3001 I graduated with a 3.7 gpa I think I paid plenty of attention. Lmao.
What a remarkable video. It is a great reminder that politics were really never as clean, quiet and civilized as people think. It’s always been a big messy business. As a Canadian I am always amazed at the chaos of American politics. Yet somehow it works.
It doesn't work. It's been corroding the foundation of this country since the beginning.
I loved the way this was detailed and informative without any info that didnt need to be there. Honestly i thought this would have been one of those older videos that got tons of views but I was definitely wrong. You deserve more attention if you produce these types of videos.
I'm absolutely fascinated with your channel. An instant favorite indeed. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I've been watching your channel since that time traveling checklist for the medieval period. This one was fascinating and gave so much insight to things I hadn't seen considered. I thought it was just a simple 100% vote from the electoral college to elect Washington but this shows so much more of the story. I love the small details such as the scheme to make sure John Adams wasn't accidentally elected. It is comical to see just how human the founding fathers were and how many mistakes they made. My favorite part was when New York missed the deadline to vote due to the disagreement on how they should vote. It's just funny to think how loosely structured the government really was at the very start of our country compared to where it is today.
Please do more videos on American history, I'm obsessed with the way you present and format your lectures!
I'm Canadian and I love to teach my friends and family facts about the US and Canadian constitutions. I've read them both, and I'm not an expert on them, but I did absorb quite a bit and there are so many amazing and surprising details in them both. And when I talk to my British friends, I say, "I love the British constitution so much that I've memorized every single word of it." They pause for a moment, in thought, then they reply, "But there is no such thing as a British Constitution." And I shout out, "Aha!" Then we discuss why a constitution is a good thing. (Hint: wars have been fought in Britain over issues arising from their lack of a constitution explaining the roles of the various parts of government.)
As a Ukrainian, I'd say that wars appear despite having a constitution. Especially if you rewrite them often, as here it's done (for example I prefer the first variant to a current one).
@@romankravchenko4736 Yes, I agree that a constitution won't stop a foreign invasion. But the war in Britain that I was talking about was a civil war. An internal war. That's the kind of war that won't happen with a decent constitution. Besides, the current Ukraine constitution is barely 25 years old.
Doubtful Britain does have a constitution in fact arguably the first real constitution it’s called the Magna Carta
In fact the US Constitution takes its semblance from the Magna Carta
@@kyletaylor4489 Are you trying to imply that the Magna Carta is a constitution? If so, you would be wrong. In fact, the Magna Carta was just a "Royal Prerogative" which is even WEAKER than a law, let alone a constitution.
This was amazing I had no idea that this was the setup back in that day thank you very much for that education
Great vid! Really puts into perspective how 200+ years isn't even that long ago in the grand scheme of things since this is the same chicanery still happening in U.S. politics today.
This was super fun! It’s jaw-dropping to discover how much of my nation’s history is never taught, and just how much historical context hindsight bias has wiped from our textbooks and brains.
And he did this in 20 minutes! Lol
Wait until you learn just how much of it was a compromise to maintain slavery!
They did teach this in public school, but unfortunatly a lot of people sleep through it lol! My wife knows nothing about the Alamo and we live in San Antonio.... and I'm like THEY TAUGHT US THIS!! ha, some people just don't care to learn history, but prefer other subjects
One thing that is never taught is to discover and learn outside of class.
We like to pretend our democracy an ideology rather than just a historic accident that was idolized.
Quickly becoming my favorite channel on YT.
Superb reporting on these inaugreal events for the fledgling United States. I want to make mention that your factual and unbiased reporting or lack of obvious retconning- all the common hallmarks of media today are delightfully absent in your program. Thank you for just sticking to the reality of the situation and sparing us a revision of the events to meet one's own hypothesis. Your presentation was refreshing and insightful. I think I just found my next binge playlist. Take care sir.
Random Belgian citizen here. I randomly clicked on this video not expecting too much, but I was pleasantly surprised! I've always been into history (of any nation), so this was an interesting addition to my general knowledge. Thank you!
P.S.: I added my nationality because of the small edit/question at 21:44. Belgium's governmental system is SUPER complex, so I don't think it's better, but I also don't think it's worse really. (You should look into it a little if you're interested, it's insane how our government works haha)
Thanks! I'm fascinated by complex systems of government, so I'll have to learn about Belgium's.
@@premodernist_history Good luck and have fun with the mess that is Belgian politics if you do actually decide to look it up! Not one, but SIX governments to entertain you.
When you create six forms of government to stop Flemish speakers in Brussels from feeling insecure.
Wonderful to hear your viewpoint. My grandfather was of Belgium descent (French speaking), his father was born in Belgium and immigrated to the United States in the 1870s. I’ve never really understood Belgium - if Leopold was the first king of the Belgiums as late as the 1830s what was the organization of the country prior? At one point did the Dutch rule Belgium? Was it part of the original Germanic states? This makes me realize I need to correct my ignorance and learn the history of Belgium. Interesting that Brussels ended up as the seat of EU.
@Jon Holland the entire low countries (modern day Belgium and the Netherlands) were part of the realm of the Dukes of Burgundy in the 15th century. The last Duke of Burgundy died unexpectedly and left his realm to his daughter, who married into the Austrian Habsburgs (who had recently become Holy Roman Emperors), meaning they inherited the Low Countries.
Then, the Habsburgs, through more marriage politics, acquired Spain. Emperor Charles V of Habsburg was the most powerful ruler of Europe as King of Spain, Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of the Low Countries (around 1520). He split his realm between his son, Philip II, who became king of Spain and ruler of the Low Countries, and his brother, who became Archduke of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor.
Then, the Dutch Revolt or 80 Years War happened (starting in 1568), where some of the Low Countries revolted against Spanish rule uniting in the Union of Utrecht. Eventually (in 1648), the mostly protestant north gained independence from Spain as the Dutch Republic and the Catholic south remained under Spanish rule as the Spanish Netherlands.
In 1714 Austria gained control of the Spanish Netherlands, which it lost 100 years later with the napoleonic wars. Redesigning Europe at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed, including the former Dutch Republic and the former Austrian Netherlands (and Luxemburg).
Then to your actual question, the south was more industrialised and economically productive, yet had a marginalised roll in the politics of the country. So in the 1830s they revolted to proclaim independence as the Kingdom of Belgium.
That's a brief outline of the history of Belgium (written by someone from the Netherlands).
I remember learning about this in 7th grade US History class and was extremely fascinated, in awe at how the whole drafting of the constitution happened. Especially fascinating was the War of 1774 which stood out to me the most. Early stages America has and always will be fascinating to me.
3:58 they didn’t think it would be impractical…they didn’t want the American people deciding their leader. They want a few pliable politicians deciding the president.
Which is why to this day YOUR VOTE DOESN’T MATTER.
Just discovered your channel. Two periods in history that fascinate me: The American Revolution & the founding of the US Constitution and WW2. Thank you for this video. Looking forward to learning more.
That's 3...
@@TheLiverTea well, obviously I’m lumping two of these things into one period.
@@TonyG_Film just giving you a hard time
@@TheLiverTea I deserve it! 😉
History was always boring until high school when I got a teacher who made it come alive and interesting they way you do.
She also inserted tidbits of personal scandal that made them more like living people of history as opposed to just being "ho-hum" dead politicians, kings, queens, famous generals, etc.
Since then I became a history buff. Thank you, Miss Crago!
Do you think you will make a video about the first 10 amendments to the constitution that were made to appease many of the anti federalists?
I hadn't thought of it before but I'm open to the idea.
@@premodernist_history please do!
You mean the first 11... or 12, depending on how you look at things. What we refer to as the "Bill of Rights" wasn't a proposed slate of 10 amendments. It was 12. Their first amendment wasn't ratified, but still technically could be. Their second amendment was ratified, but as our 27th amendment. Their third through twelfth amendments were ratified as our first through tenth. Confused yet?
DUDEEEEEEE, insanely sick, informing, and easy to follow video, god bless man!!!
I had no idea the opponents of the system tried to undermine it before Washington even took office. That was a surprise to me. Great video! And great delivery!
This was a very informative video. I wasn't aware of all of the different processes the states used to choose Electors. Will you do a video on the 1800 election where Jefferson and Burr tied in the Electoral College?
Great vid! One thing this cements for me is how frakkin' lucky America/U.S. was to have a person like Geo. Washington, not just to win the rebellion with his strategy but the stature of character to literally unite the colonies behind the U.S. Constitution. For the last 20 years or so, i've looked at the ratification of the Constitution as the "birth of our nation" rather than the Declaration.
Absolutely. Without Washington it would have came apart. He has to walk a tightrope in his two terms and never lost sight of what his choices would mean for the future.
Rather a polyannish view of history. To be sure he only served two terms(viewing himself somewhat like royalty) setting an example, but All men have feet of clay and Washington is no different. Your schoolbooks were written by those who require public adoration of the state and mass compliance. Some further investigation will show how he was involved in massive land fraud schemes, or leading an army to impose taxes on the briefly free people of western Pennsylvania. His actions were self serving, as was the case with all men.
@@davidturoff8017 he didn't view himself as royalty. Many people accuse him of this because of his "creation" of the body we know as the "cabinet" even though it mentions no such thing in the constitution. But it wasn't because he was monarchical: when he was leading the Continental Army he would often meet with his top lieutenants like that, solicit advice from them as a body, and then make his decision. Other than that I cannot see how he fancied himself "king". Your statement about public adoration of the state and mass compliance via our textbooks is ridiculous. I'd like to see how you can back that one up. But yes, he had his own agenda and his own biases. You stated that yourself "...as was the case with all men." If all men are like that, how can Washington have been a monarch when he was like every other politician?
@@supercolinblow How is it ridiculous to say that government education was designed to create an adoration of the state? Have you ever heard of the pledge of allegiance to a flag? Where your hand is held over your heart? That doesn’t seem religious in any way to you? What of the great world wars. According to public school textbooks the U.S. intentions are somehow benevolent always on the fight against evil. No mention of how the Lusitania incident was basically a false flag heavily propagandized by the Hearst and Morgan media empires. William Jennings Bryan resigned his position as secretary of state because Wilson refused to convey the warning issued by the German department of State, because the Lusitania was laden with munitions. No mention of Allen Dulles helping to consolidate German industrial interests into Swiss ownership just prior to the onset of hostilities in WW2. No mention of F.D.R.’s fawning praise of Hitler and Mussolini because of their economic achievements. Did you learn of all the CIA’s drug and mind control experiments on innocent civilians? Or their blatant control of the media narratives through project “Mockingbird”? What you are taught in government school is that despite its faults, the government overall has the interests of the people as its core mission. If the past 3 years of the government’s attack on the ordinary people hasn’t disabused you of this notion, what will it take?
It is better and worse. Meaning, people still don’t know what goes on. Thank you for more information.
It's interesting how many of the problems back then we are still having now.
We need to get rid of the Electoral College altogether and go to the direct election of the president by a majority of the voting population. (All of this business about "swing states" is nonsense.) Every voter's vote in every state should count equally. Let's move to a genuine democracy. The United States is one nation.
Great video! It taught me a lot of things I didn't know about. I'm not an American, but my parents instilled in me a love of all things political and historical. Thank you for your dedication, and for sharing your knowledge!
Perfection. Clearly well researched (with citations!). Quality analysis. Informative. You even told us when you weren’t sure about something. This was like a university lecture. Thank you for running this channel.
A brilliant presentation. I am UK national and had imagined that GW was elected first president the day after the declaration of independence and not 13 years later. Or that there was no centralised government for over 10 years. I'd read the private diaries of some colonists, pre independence, and was aware that there were separate currencies in each colony and working out the exchange rate for trade was a nightmare. Absolutely fascinating stuff.
Definitely plan to read more about this intervening period to 1789.
Thank you for this very interesting programme.
Also not appreciated in the US - I think - is how UK held onto Jamaica and Canada, and how New Brunswick and Ottawa evolved as anti-states. I mean, George III's heritage lives on in the very name Brunswick, which is not an English town but an Anglicisation of Braunschweig.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. didn't really have an executive, as such. As Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, Washington was probably the closest approximation to a president for the duration of the Revolutionary War.
Imagine america during those 13 years before 1789, no taxes, no elections, no federal court. I wonder if people were anti constitutional because they liked the freedom.
How these rural voters forsaw a huge federal government not doing what the people want. We did trade one tyranny for another. It just took 200 years for it to come to fruition.
The fact it lasted this long is a testament to the genius of the founding fathers those cucked Euros and their absolute monarchies turning into "democracies" have fared much worse in the last 200 years and have lost every right they ever had.
great lecture. I watched til the end.Your a natural historical story teller
Thank you for sharing. ✌🏼❤🙏🏼
It always fascinates me how much early Anti-Federalists/Democratic-Republicans were into George Clinton and the Parliament Funkadelic...
I seldom hear much about the early years that I do not already know. Thank you for this amazing video!
I want to mention that although in this video, you talk about the Federalists' worries about the potential Anti-Federalist scheme as amounting to nothing, their worries were certainly not unfounded, as it could have definitely turned out differently. Hamilton and his fellows' efforts were very patriotic in their determination to see the US become a united country, and they should be recognized for them
Besides that, thank you for this informative and eye-opening video. I find it so interesting that the Framers originally started the country with a system like that of ranked-choice voting, but that that system's flaws led to it being performed then done away with later on
I like your sourcing / refs. at the end--it gives a viewer the chance to review and ensure the credibility of the history presented.
I think it's perhaps more relevant and important than ever for Americans to understand _why_ there was no presidential campaigning in the way we experience it back at the beginning. The first reason was that, back then, they thought that public character did matter for this office, and particularly because most of the time the position was going to be more representational of the country than it was going to be a functional, daily role in government. Today our news media, and therefore most who listen to them, assign responsibility for just about everything that happens in the country, even inflation, to the actions or inactions of whoever is president, but at that time--and long afterwards--presidents might not even be in Washington and readily available for many months at a time. The position simply wasn't envisioned as being that important to the country's day-to-day life as state government was, or even the Congress to some extent as they held the federal purse strings. In the typical rhetoric of the Framers, the president was supposed to be a position of humble strength and statesmanship--not someone who would ever be self-aggrandizing, even in campaign speeches, etc., as that would be unseemly, inappropriate, and a demonstration of poor character and immaturity in someone who was supposed to be fit to fill that office. Today, unless it gets to be over-the-top even compared to the stars of sports and entertainment, Americans tend to reward that kind of self-view and the behaviors that go with it. By the election of 1800, though, this was put to an early test in a knock-down, drag-through-the-mud affair with candidates accused of absolutely anything that any commentator on the other side could think of that might stick, and hopefully cost them some votes, much more akin to the conduct during campaigns that we see now.
Such an excellent explanation of information & history in a very well done timeline.
Thank you for this. It just shows from the get go, the conspiracies, corruption, special interests and just overall complexities of human nature...making complexities for humanity through politics. Nothing has changed at its roots. The intentions are still the same. The good, the bad and the ugly.
I’m in Switzerland! We have 7 presidents «everyone has one year»
The story of Switzerland is similar in a lot of ways to America it’s very interesting
It's funny you should mention that, because Thomas Jefferson, in particular, was inspired by Switzerland in how the government should be run. He spoke very highly of Switzerland. For context, Thomas Jefferson is the one who wrote the Constitution
The details are always glossed over about this period as "the antifederalists hated this so the federalists wrote the federalist papers and persuaded them with the promise of a bill of rights" so I love learning about the actual drama of the time!
Your teaching method and presentation style is entertaining, intriguing(makes me want to keep learning), and very well presented in a manner that works for my ADHD. I feel like I can just fall into your lesson and not want to stop listening. You're a wonderful teacher. Thank you for working hard to make these videos for us!
Thanks!