ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ย. 2024
- Pulitzer Prize-winner Gordon Wood delivered the Teach-In's luncheon address. A professor emeritus of history at Brown University, Wood spoke primarily on John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and their differing views on governance.
Thanks for being here.
If you listen to him speak without watching, his voice brings to mind Joe Pesci. LOL! Seriously... try it.
You've literally spoiled every Gordon Wood lecture for me. Top form ZZ Stop.
An erudite mobster
27:25 no Constitution, no matter how well written can survive without sufficient virtue of the people. How’s that working out?
Adam's believed strongly in everything Hamilton had created in The Constitution and Hamiltons plot that successfully destroyed the disastrous articles of confederation. Hamilton was only able to do it because he knew Washington had come to see the articles of confederation as a Trojan horse that the states devised to destroy their own new central government by denying it any means to fund itself or compell the states to fund it.
Hamilton knew that if Washington agreed to attend and serve as convention Presidemt, That most states would win with a stronger central government.
The only States that would lose power were foremost Virginia(which paid off all her war debts already ) so gained nothing from the new federal governments assumption of state debt. Virginia and all the colonies but Rhode Island had under the articles been given all lands Westover their states stretching all the way to the pacific ocean. It was already taken for granted that Old Glory would fly accossed the continent from Atlantic to Pacific.
Jefferson wanted the articles and didn't like the constitution because the Constitution left the land west of the Appalachian chain to The Federal Government and eliminated the direct westward claim of the states. Some states were relieved.... Rhode Island, Maine and the already in strange limbo district of Columbia.
Before the articles of confederation, Virginia actually claimed all land west of the Appalachian chain. As in every bit of land not a part of the original thirteen colonies Virginia clained!
This was a ridiculous claim that even the hubris of the folks from The Old Dominion must have realized wouldn't fly. So they were rather happy with even the reduced claim the articles gave them as they were allowed to count their slaves as 2/3rds of a vote and they knew this would likely give them and an almost perpetual dominance of the house of representatives. South Carolina which was settled by carribean sugar slave Lord's were equally happy with the power this gave them.since they never considered themselves Americans.and.made.constant threats to secede if their demands to maintain their perpetual dominance along with Virginia over the industrial North were not met.
This fear of the north industrial power and constant innovation culminated in the doctrine of States Rights over The Law of The Federal Government or even the rights of individuals.
John Calhoun saw what Hamilton had designed into.the system but everyone but Washington, who he told his plan to had failed to see.
That the North would rapidly industrialize and there would come a point as westward. Expansion continued that even counting two thirds of all their slaves as 1 vote would not maintain the south dominance in congress and eventually the north would have the power to take their slaves away by force and amend the constitution to illegalize it forever.
Their fear made it happen. It would have been almost impossible for the north to carry an amendment freeing al the slaves had Calhoun not planted the seeds of rebellion in the always faithless south Carolina. The south might still have slaves today had they not manifested their own fears by following a state made of of carribean family's into rebellion against the whole union.
South Carolina didn't want to be a part of America during the revolution. South Carolina tried to destroy The Union during the war of Southern treason.
South Carolina has never even to this day been a loyal state. If she thought she could get away with it she would rebel again I have no doubt.
Calhoun saw the trap Hamilton had laid for the southern slave powers dominance in the government. He just didn't realize that his doctrine of states rights set the trap off.
@13:54 constitutional means legal and illegal in America too. Plus they had slaves.
Wow, who knew?
This man is the least objective hiatorian on the early republic I have ever known. I've watched this Boston Irish ultra liberal hold up every enemy of hamiltons as the greatest and denigrate Hamilton at every opportunity. That Washington trusted Hamilton implicitly he never mentions, but that's only because if he attacks Washington he will be seen for what he is... a supporter of no founder but a man who bitterly hates Hamilton. He's even said burrs a good guy. He'd say tallyrand was a Saint if doing so would somehow smear Hamilton.
You couldn’t be more wrong re his politics. He’s a tea party dbag. Historiography wise he’s a neo Whig that can’t stomach a Progressive approach.
Whilst I don't agree completely I find your commentary very well thought out. Thanks for sharing.
liberal goober