I really dont think it's that black or white. Adams was a counter revolutionary who leaned federalist. Jefferson was a pro-revolutionary who leaned anti-federalist or pro state autonomy. Both recognized the failure of humans, in government with centralized tyranny, and with the people in tyranny of the majority or anarchy.
My best friend and I disagree all the time. The thing we enjoy most is the challenge we offer each other. Against a third party, I’ll defend my friend to the death. This had to hurt so much.
And I think that is the point - to show that these issues are never black or white but always some shade of gray. Jefferson and Adams were lifelong friends despite hardly ever agreeing on any political points. But that’s one of their greatest legacies to the American public - showing us how you can disagree on politics but still find a middle ground based in friendship, respect, and honor. They never doubted that, though they disagreed with each other - they still knew the other person was being guided by their conscience and trying their best. It’s beautiful to know that they both died hours apart in their old age on July 4th - the day that both TOGETHER helped to accomplish.
@@davecrupel2817 After reading other comments and reading some articles myself, STILL I can feel Jefferson. And I can relate. So far I read his ideas on democracy as a freethinker align a lot with enlightment philosophy, which gave shape to many politicians and freethinkers of the French Revolution. Unfortunately, and this is something I just learned, the American Revolution was not entirely given shape by enlightment ideas, but also some inherited from Britain, but wanted to give implementation in many different ways. And well, that reflects in their policy of the time and their desire to break away from Britain as a nation (therefore a revolution, not only independence) But yeah, I can relate in feeling still. I love enlightment ideas myself.
@@XanathosZero Now study the what the French Revolution did with those "enlightened" ideas. It didn't work out so well. Enlightenment without a dose of pragmatism is pure anarchy.
@@josephgilorma6979 Indeed. And yet is not all about leadership. Certainly Louis XVI was a bad leadet but if another strong monarch would have ruled, the decadent state of royals and nobles would have remained. This breach between the high and lower classes exploding in an unimpended violence is a theme that echoes to our days in different colors. As a proof other monarchs stopped the revolutions furor in their countries by authoritarian might. Although other leaders understood better. When Prussia had its revolution years later, and the unification became the question of the day, and later the achievement, its minister president Otto von Bismarck created the welfare state as part of his plan of unification but also as he put it (and I am paraphrasing) "to buy the peace from the masses" My point being that the context of both American and French Revolutions were different. So you can compare them well in some scarce aspects, really.
After resigning Jefferson used the newspapers to keep organizing & publishing attacks against Washington & Hamilton's policies, The criticism grew nasty as the years went on and sadly one of the damages these attacks produced was the termination of Washington & Jefferson's long friendship. Washington was personally hurt by many of them and he knew Jefferson was the 'behind-them', but Washington never mentioned that or criticized Jefferson by name. These 'attacks' (plus some 'anger' from Thomas Paine against Washington) could have been a part of why Washington left after two terms and eventually led a President Adams to back those horrible 'Alien & Sedition' acts later.
@@kevinh9110Nope. Washington spent the last of his days privately despising Jefferson, and Martha Washington would say that the day Jefferson visited her after the General's passing was the second worst day of her life.
@@Susieq26754it being a miniseries does not serve as an indication for how well or not well it represents those it portrays. Also you can literally look up the letters they wrote to each other and see for yourself the show portrays their manner of addressing each other quite well. Like fuck sake you have resources at your disposal. Use them.
"Hamilton... He believes that men can only be governed by force and self interest". Thomas Jefferson could see right through Hamilton like no other man could. I think he saw the grown-up orphan boy who was still looking for order and stability in life and thought that power and force where the way to install order. Whereas Jefferson trusted the common man who will accept power only "under the consent of the governed."
See through? That was no disguise Hamilton was wearing. He genuinely believed what he was saying. And much of it was true. Jefferson and Adams wanted a total break with England because they did not want the slightest chance that the colonies would be re-absorbed back into the Empire. Hamilton wanted independence, but he wanted a strong relationship with Britain. At the time, Jefferson and Adams were right. Britain would have taken the colonies back -- by any means it could bring to bear. Eventually though, our relationship with Britain would be very advantageous to us. There is a natural alliance between Britain and the US. We needed time and distance for that alliance bear fruit.
@@ardalla535 Neither one was entirely right. Different aspects of their viewpoints ended up being adopted. We got a strong treasury and federal government, but many of Hamilton's more authoritarian ideas were rejected. Jefferson's ideal of the small yeoman farmer was a fantasy never to be, but his philosophy on the nature of man and government guides us to this day. They were complicated men who were not entirely right or wrong.
...and then Jefferson showed that he didnt care for rule of law either...watch his attempts to tar Aaron Burr with treason out of petty spite. Jefferson TALKED a good revolution game, but of the three (Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson)...he behaved in the most aristocratic manner.
dclark142002, Jefferson may have overstepped his power in Burr’s treason trial, but I’m convinced Burr plotted treason against the U.S. His letter to Anthony Merry - discovered in the British archives in the 1960s, if memory serves me correctly - proved he was asking foreign governments for aide in overthrowing the U.S. The only thing Hamilton and Jefferson could agree on was that Burr was a dangerous man because he put himself above the country. History proved them right.
It's a historical drama, it's based on facts and not everything in it is going to be something they actually said. What you said about Jefferson probably agreeing with it says enough.
The reaction of Adams is very telling. Adams rarely showed outward emotions regarding personal relationships. In this case he softens rapidly when he hears his friend is going to resign. Great acting here.
The long conflict between Great Britain and France after the birth of the United States was probably one of the major factors contributing to it's early success. Neither France nor Britain had the resources to challenge the United States during the napoleonic wars and action by one of them would've undoubtedly led to the US allying themselves with the other. They engaged in some kind of untouchable neutrality. And when the war was over, the US had established itself as an independent nation, capable of defending it's sovereignty against the old european powers.
Eight years of rational administration by Washington enabled Adams to exercise executive measures to create a viable Navy. Had Washington exercised such measures, either Britain, France, or both might have sought to strangle the United States in it's cradle.
Mate what are you even waffling about right now? There was a theater of the Napoleonic wars in America it's called the war of 1812.... You know when we were at war with the British? And they sent their soldiers to burn the White House down? Yeah that was part of the Napoleonic wars buddy your historical analysis is completely wrong.
@Jay Slomine No. Thomas Paine wrote in his book The Rights of Man that the Declaration of the Rights of Man would amount to a "Regeneration of man." He argued that the current generation has no obligations to past generations, and that they are not bound to tradition. While in France he was the first to advocate for the abolition of the monarchy. That all amounts to a complete overthrow of all tradition. That is how you get the storming of the Bastille, the execution of Louis XVI, and the looting of Notre Dame. And Paine associated with the Girondins.
@Samuel L. Jackson Imagine thinking that Thomas Jefferson: a rich plantation owner would look at modern day socialism and believe in it. The smartest minds in socialism refuse it at the end of their life or become morally corrupt. Even Orwell said if he could go back he'd be an anarchist. Socialism is a weak ideology just like other modern day ideologies. Until we realize all our ideas are nonsense we'll continue to have weak politicians while our modern day Jeffersons die never having been in politics.
@NaztyNayt Thomas Jefferson was an extremely brilliant man, but not the best president. Recall the failure of the Embargo Act of 1807, and recall also that Jefferson died while bearing massive personal debt. Jefferson's grave stone mentions three of the accomplishments which he is most proud including: Authoring the Declaration of Independence, The statute for religious freedom in Virginia, and Starting the University of Virginia. Notice the Presidency is not mentioned on his own tomb.
Despite the ubiquitous belief that Jefferson authored the Declaration, consider this: The original draft was written by Thomas Paine at Franklin’s request. Franklin provided Paine’s draft to Adams, who transcribed it into the copy that Jefferson marked up for the final version. The accreditation of principal authorship to Jefferson was a political necessity-done with Paine’s consent and concurrence-because the members of the Continental Congress, despite their rhetoric about the rights of the common man, were mostly a class-conscious lot. Unlike them, Paine was a commoner who owned no property. Even in July 1776, he was still not widely recognized as the author of Common Sense, which he had published anonymously six months earlier, and which turned what had started in 1775 as a rebellion for redress of grievances into a revolution for independence and self-governance. Before Common Sense, most of the other “founders”-including George Washington-were for reconciliation, and firmly opposed to independence. Consequently, even among those who knew that Paine had authored Common Sense, he was considered little more than a political pamphleteer, and to some (including John Adams), he was despised as a rabble rouser. It just wouldn’t do to have it known that he was the true author of the Declaration. Presumably, that’s why Adams transcribed Paine’s draft into his own handwriting, so it would appear to have originated within the Committee of Five. I don’t know how much Livingston and Sherman knew about the Declaration’s true source, but Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson certainly knew it came from Paine. I’m sure that, to most folks, this is all heresy. “Everyone knows” that Jefferson wrote the Declaration...er, right? I can already anticipate the flames and awful mouthfuls of abuse this post will engender, even though I’m only floating it for consideration by those who might wish to research it for themselves, and not asserting it as incontrovertible fact. I won’t list all the other arguents and evidence here...well, unless someone is curious and wants to have a rational discussion about it...despite the fact that “rational discussion” and “UA-cam comments” are not concepts normally associated with one another. Anyhow, I’m not trolling. I would welcome an intelligent discussion as to why I believe the evidence suggests Paine authored the Declaration. But I’m not about to waste my time in angry arguing. 😎
“Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?” Apparently yes.
Mass murders happened on a grand scale that has never been seen in France when those "idealist" of the pleb instincts got into power. stop calling it idealism it's just resentment against those who are better off than they are
It must have been hard to move away from the British yolk that had ruled America for 150 years before it was kicked out in 1776 that's for certain, but the US did thankfully eventually become it's own nation !!!!!
I think that Jefferson makes a good point here saying British in all but name when you think that they basically went right back trading with Britain. I think it was hard to fully break away which has not really happened in the finance aspect of things. Obviously we are own nation and have sovereignty and are a big bad super power but still kind of glued to the mother country 🤔😂
@@historygeekslive8243 You were and are a sovereign nation seperate from anything to do with Britain, so trading with us was and is like trading with any nation, nothing to do with mother country !!!
This drama paints it as giving up hope, but historically it was more like Jefferson deciding that he can't cooperate his way into his utopia with men like Hamilton, so he needed to form his own party to fight back, with blackjack and hookers.
I don't know what you mean by "didn't work". Lots of "systems" prevailed for hundreds if not thousands of years. The American system of government prevailed for three hundred and fifty years, which makes it middling.
@@scparker6893 Hamilton did the stuff that wasn't popular but need to be done, founded a national army, injected sound financial principles into the American government, He was incredibly good with structure and economics, not so good with the libertarian aspects of America's founding.
@@josh18230 but like did we need a national army tho. In less than five years hamilton turned it on the nation's own citizens during the whiskey rebellion, which started all because of his whiskey tax. Ironic considering those same rebels had just fought off an oppressive government
It does sound like that combo, doesn't it? xD I know the TJ actor (Stephen Dillane) is British in real life, so that might be where the British is coming from...some people say that they find some British and American southern accents to be similar, so maybe that's why? Unfortunately none of his contemporaries described what the real TJ sounded like accent-wise, so we'll probably never know... Thank you for the comment! :)
…...who has /ever/ said "British and Southern American to be similar"? I'm from the south, and in no particular order Southerners think I'm from the North Yanks think I'm from /Australia/ Australians aren't sure I'm not Canadian. It's bizarre.
I admire Jefferson’s desire for freedom for a nation’s people, but hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to Frances’ revolutions. France was no America, and it took its people down a bloody and cold route to gain freedom only for it to be striped from them again and again. France’s revolution devolved into barbarism and imperialism that tore the European continent into years of war. If only hindsight was available to him at this time. I suppose time would change his perspective on this matter.
France also achieved it's own Revolution through actions that most did not like, violence. Violence by the people should only occur when the Governing body is using violence first. The Colonists did not want separation at first, they wanted ties but they wanted freedom and liberty, something the crown refused to give them. After repeated attempts through diplomatic relations and several acts of violence by Britain, did the Colonists finally have enough. The French people wanted the destruction of the Governing body without diplomatic talks. As you said, France destroyed itself in more ways than one which is why the US should have stayed out of it. The French Revolution was a tricky bitch in the eyes of the newly formed US and honestly, not getting involved was definitely the best option.
@@jeremycasper6672 The Frenchs did it because their people was poor, opressed, the French tried diplomacy, and even the revolution was a way to erradicate the wrong things, get rights and guarantee a constitutional government, both the Marsh and the Mountain wanted that, and just when Robespierre proclaimed that some corrupts (the Thermidorians) overthrow him, but then the royalist try a Counter-Revolution, so they asked the Jacobins for support, and leaded by a prominent Jacobin called Di Buonaparte they save the government, but then the Marsh and the Mountain (Jacobins) decided to overthrow the moderates and put Di Buonaparte (Bonaparte), in power, and altrought he early governated as a moderate, to avoid wars, he turned again to the left as soon as they declared war on him, finally the elections of 1804, where the ultimate sucess, of the revolution, The constitutional and egalitarian state, (For the 1795-1799 period)( i could detail it but is irrelevant to the concept)
@@hiddenfromhistory100 And then shamefully reinstated it by force. Which is worse, a taste of honey or none at all? Napoleon later recognized the brutality of his policies regarding that (in the French Caribbean holdings) compromised his ability to make those places profitable to France again and later mused with great foresight that "One cannot keep people oceans apart as subjects for long." Shortly after he concluded the Louisiana Purchase with that curious fledgling nation and kept his attentions where it belonged in Europe.
0:42 - 1:07 Regardless if you agree or disagree that his description of Hamilton is accurate, Jefferson´s description it´s however on point to what Donald Trump is. Just replace "British" with "Russian".
“They’re one in the same John! Are they not?” No Thomas. They’re really not! Really gotta appreciate the irony of this “Freedom and Liberation” talk from Mr. Slave Owner. Jefferson was so full of his own shit.
Slavery was usually always at the forefront of the conversation regarding independence. John Adams touches on this but it doesn't really delve deep into how one of the biggest talking points against independence was what that would mean for slavery. Jefferson's views on slavery were complex for the time, as it was seen as a natural way of life. And as such excluded from the idea of liberty and freedom. However, we also know that slavery was always at the forefront of everyones mind when it came to the revolution.
This video reminds me of a scene from the movie Two days, one night starring Marion Cotillard. What’s funny is Marion Cotillard is extremely like Thomas Jefferson.
@RushLimborg, mainly he didn't like that the President wasn't given specified term limits in the Constitution, and also that a Bill of Rights did not accompany it (until a few years later, that is). It's funny how none of the Founders got exactly what they wanted out of that Constitution. xD
@@mrbrainbob5320 Not necessarily. It is in America's case and many other modern governments, but it is certainly possible to make a republic out of representatives that aren't directly elected, which would be undemocratic.
@@AllUpOns that's just nitpicking and doesnt change my original point. A republic in the modern sense is still a Democracy. The US is a representative democracy.
@@authortanyareed You're so ignorant about Jefferson. You realize he put the anti slavery clause into the constitution that was removed by Franklin. He ended the importation of slaves to the US and freed every single slave that he could by Virginian law that wasnt owned by his creditors. God forbid you read a history book or for that matter something without pictures.
@@authortanyareed He was against it in principal and actually condemned it in his first draft of the declaration, but he felt as though releasing his slaves would be a political statement that he was not prepared to make to his fellow southerners.
Earlier in the show, he says that the President is "a king in all but name" and that Congress has too little power in government. Jefferson likely would've preferred a parliamentary republic similar to that of Germany today.
"I cannot descend daily into the arena to suffer martyrdom on every conflict" How it feels defending truth and our freedoms in 2020 against the legacy media and Gen Z
Gen z might be the civil war generation lol. Half of us are extreme conservatives and the other side is fanatically left. As a member of the 04 gen z. There have been brawls inside and outside of school over politics. In what other generation was it widely expected and acceptable for one classmate to break the teeth of another over slight ideological differences.
@@Tevans333 Gen Z can't fight a war. Our generation is weak. Unless the war involves flaming people on twitter. Nobody's got the guts to pick up a gun.
@Tom CizzleSTFU I never watched Hamilton. Stop assuming shit over the internet. Jefferson was flirting with the Robspierre and his BS going on in France. Hamilton realized that a Unifying central government would be key to the success of the US. He didn't want to end up like Europe again or with another Articles of Confederation. Hamilton grew up in the West Indies, so he knew slavery was an issue that was going to rise again. Brush up on your history on historical figures.
Mr. Hamilton would have us British in our economy, British in our forms of government, British John!! In all but name.. hmm.. looks like Mr. Hamilton got his wish... more influential than we give him credit for. 😅😅😅👍
Even back then, people couldn't set aside their fucking pride and agendas for the greater good. And as expected, those who seek compromises are talked down to like they did something wrong.
There are those who are stubborn out of principle and those who are stubborn out of pride and ambition. I like to think that Jefferson was the former but it really is impossible to say for sure
It wasn't arrogance. Jefferson believed whole-heartedly in revolution and hated the monarchy. He felt if people died during the revolution, it was blood necessarily spent. Jefferson was right to think that a France without a King was good for the US. He, obviously, didn't see the Reign of Terror coming, but neither did the French.
No, seriously, Adams was bromantically in love; the problem was Jefferson was just not that into him. When Adams became president, he wanted Jefferson to help him, be his partner, in the presidency. After consulting with Madison, Jefferson declined because he disagreed with Federalist ideas. Thus any success Federalists had, Adams would get the credit, and Federalists would remain a powerful, political influence. Jefferson would not help Adams. Admas indeed became a "Party of One." He was too honest and frankly too naive about political parties' work. It is one of the reasons after Adams loses the election of 1800 to Jefferson, the two do not speak for nearly twenty years. It is only through Abigail's reaching out to a mutual friend the two are reconciled.
Jefferson has an almost agricultural Marxist ideology in this series. Agriculture over industrial poverty, class struggle over national struggles, permanent revolution, etc. Wouldn't be surprised if Karl took great inspiration from Jefferson.
John Gannon It explains a lot why Jefferson almost seemed to like the French Revolution more. The French Revolution was left wing and the American one was right wing. At least from the Anglo point of view.
You can't say that Jefferson was Marxs, because he was not. Agriculture was way people lived in the 1700s. You take that way people had no work. Jefferson was very much for small government and the for the people, where Adam is not.
@@ReformedSooner24 Left wing in 1700s was for smaller government, where the right was for big government. The alignment of both parties didn't change until Lincoln.
I doubt Marx would have agreed with the planters' aristocracy of the South. If I recall, he favored the North over the South during the Civil War, because a bourgeois revolution was still better than archaic agricultural aristocracy. Marx was pretty much about industrialisation, but with industries owned by the workers.
I am genuinely curious, because I am unsure, who do you consider to be the "liberal" and the "conservative" in this exchange? John Adams support for centralized government may make him appear farther to the left of Jefferson by the standards that we use to categorize political belief today while Jefferson is mostly revered by conservatives today, but at the time John Adams views were much more conventional and Jefferson was very much a radical.
@@ryanmccartney244 Jefferson was a full on enthusiast of the first 'progressive sledge' aka the French Revolution....regicide, state police, one party rule, nationalization of private assets, massacres .... the Vendee repression....the bolsheviks copied it to a 'T' esp. religious persecution but only changed their old style Russian calendar to the western one unlike the radicals who imposed 10 day week etc. seriously?
"Why are the slaves just walking about unattended by their masters?" Is all wed hear. These white dudes arent wholly enlightened. They inched america ahead in some ways but britain ended slavery well before we did, granted women the right to vote before we did. List goes on and on. The whole western world rushed past us in advancements of society as far as providing for the citizenry goes. The founders would.be stuck in their ways and completely ill equipped to address todays issues.
@@philswaim392 Britain relied on America when it was financially in shambles after the revolutionary war and the Founding Fathers LITERALLY PREDICTED the end of slavery BY civil war! That question you posed is MAYBE a question I could see Washington and Madison asking, not Jefferson who condemned slavery(despite owning his own), not Ben who gave up slavery entirely at one point, and not Adams who NEVER owned a slave. And if it wasnt for MY favorite founding father, Ben Franklin, lightning would not be discovered as a form of electricity for several more generations and we wouldn’t even have skyscrapers if not for him, yet the british that you seem to admire so much, they spat on Franklin regardless. Of course the REAL reason I say America needs the founding fathers back is because America is gradually lacking its sense of principle more and more, something the founding fathers have that the current leading “fathers”(and by that I mean politicians) seem to lack a great deal of.
@@philswaim392 And the founders would 100% NOT be ill equipped to address today’s issues, especially Adams and Franklin. The fact that you even said that literally just proves they’re smarter than you as I suspected of many Americans.
@@PWNINSWAGMASTER predicting the end of slavery is really lacking moral fortitude. Ending it would have showed actual enlightenment. And i think you really.give too much credit to ben franklin. You dont seriously think others around the world werent already discovering lightning as being the same thing as electricity? We knew so little about electricity anyway. These were not gods or even entirely extraordinary men. In fact they were rather ordinary. The average high schooler is far more educated than Ben Franklin.
@@philswaim392 And you think they had the political power to do it? The first step to ending slavery in their lifetime would’ve been to compromise the entire democratic republic and turn it into a federalist/monarchy, which is exactly what the Founders were trying to avoid(with the exception of Hamilton). You’re asking for an impatient end to slavery, something Abraham Lincoln literally educated Thaddeus Stevens on why it’s reckless and stupid. You’re not listening to my words carefully enough. I said, “And if it wasnt for MY favorite founding father, Ben Franklin, lightning would not be discovered as a form of electricity -->FOR SEVERAL MORE GENERATIONS
The constitution of the United States was specifically designed to limit the representative power of the common man, in favor of granting power to the upper class, who were believed to be the only ones truly capable of leading with sound judgement. The leading framers of the constitution were greatly concerned about the way the state congresses were obstructing the collection of taxes to pay off the war debt, and felt that the "rabble" could not govern themselves. With power being consolidated to a few, only the wealthy and well known would be elected, and "farmer john" would have little voice.
You're right but looking at it wrongly. First off, they designed government in general to be limited and restricted, everyone would have equal rights and government little to no affairs in the public. The Republican system was chosen because the founders at the constitutional convention had all been fans of the 1776 Best seller, THE RISE AND DECLINE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, which was a historical masterpiece commentating on both the Greek Democracy, why it failed, the constitutional Republic of Rome and why it had been so powerful, then lastly why Rome failed.
To be fair the revolution was mostly led by that upper class which didn't like the british taxation. The fact the lower classes were also inflicted with the same problems and suffered even worse worked to their benefit. However, they did try to build a government that would be more ideal and fair, one that would also prevent nobility from ruling both upper and lower classes. So despite the original motives not being initially pure, they at least tried to build something that would be give rights to everyone under the eyes of the government. Well except for slaves and the natives, they were without consideration for the most part for one reason or another. I find it rather tragic that Jefferson would be one of the cruelest presidents to the Native Americans despire writing the embodiment of USA ideology regarding basic rights.
*Hamilton* should never have existed in the first place. I only wished that he was accidentally shot dead in the war or dropped dead from diarrhea in the 1760s.
weirdisspeltweird but embedding it with the flaws that will scar mankind for millennials. Id rather see a land divided for its efficiency than an broken union
just like my best friend and I. we are constantly arguing . keep in mind that our arguments are over the methods not the goals. we agree completely on the goals.
Typical of men forced to remove themselves from home and hearth, these two friends interacted uninhibitedly at the public house. In Adams' case, he actively sought Abigail's opinion. In Jefferson's case, he was handicapped by operating on a single brain. A brain that may have been affected / effected by foreign influences and/or substances.
It always seemed that Adams was more of a friend to Jefferson, than Jefferson was to Adams.
I think that's just how jefferson behaved.
@@andreascovano7742 Correct. Jefferson had an introverted personality and it was just the way he was.
@@codymo32791 they are men of different politics and profession but they have a certain understanding which allows them to be friends
@@icecoldpolitics8890 Yes, I know this lol.
End_of_Line45 wasn’t invalidating it lol
Jefferson was an idealist. Adams was a pragmatist. Try to imagine where we'd be without one or the other.
I don't have to imagine it. We're there now.
Nonsense. Adams was a counter-revolutionary who helped bury the American revolution. Jefferson was not an idealist but a realist.
@@jakejerrison5181 This guy gets it.
I really dont think it's that black or white. Adams was a counter revolutionary who leaned federalist. Jefferson was a pro-revolutionary who leaned anti-federalist or pro state autonomy. Both recognized the failure of humans, in government with centralized tyranny, and with the people in tyranny of the majority or anarchy.
Given the state of the current American political, monied and judicial class. Jefferson was just off by a few years.
“I am no man’s puppet, Thomas.”
*I love that line*
I am no man’s muppet, Kermit.
The US government is the puppet of satan. Always has been, always will be.
What a fabulous series this was.
What a great documentary!
What a great duo!
2:40 I’m not sure why but this simple act of Jefferson spitting venom at adams just shows so much humanity in such a high historical figure, I love it
Amazing acting! I love every moment of this series!
My best friend and I disagree all the time. The thing we enjoy most is the challenge we offer each other. Against a third party, I’ll defend my friend to the death. This had to hurt so much.
I love this scene also, "British, John!!"
The sheer disgust in his voice lol
I can see both arguments on this. It's amazing.
And I think that is the point - to show that these issues are never black or white but always some shade of gray. Jefferson and Adams were lifelong friends despite hardly ever agreeing on any political points. But that’s one of their greatest legacies to the American public - showing us how you can disagree on politics but still find a middle ground based in friendship, respect, and honor. They never doubted that, though they disagreed with each other - they still knew the other person was being guided by their conscience and trying their best. It’s beautiful to know that they both died hours apart in their old age on July 4th - the day that both TOGETHER helped to accomplish.
BRITISH!! JOHN!
"THEY ARE ONE IN THE *SAME,* JOHN!!
Are they _not?!"_
I loved this .. he has a point too..
@@davecrupel2817 After reading other comments and reading some articles myself, STILL I can feel Jefferson. And I can relate. So far I read his ideas on democracy as a freethinker align a lot with enlightment philosophy, which gave shape to many politicians and freethinkers of the French Revolution. Unfortunately, and this is something I just learned, the American Revolution was not entirely given shape by enlightment ideas, but also some inherited from Britain, but wanted to give implementation in many different ways. And well, that reflects in their policy of the time and their desire to break away from Britain as a nation (therefore a revolution, not only independence) But yeah, I can relate in feeling still. I love enlightment ideas myself.
@@XanathosZero Now study the what the French Revolution did with those "enlightened" ideas. It didn't work out so well. Enlightenment without a dose of pragmatism is pure anarchy.
@@josephgilorma6979 Indeed. And yet is not all about leadership. Certainly Louis XVI was a bad leadet but if another strong monarch would have ruled, the decadent state of royals and nobles would have remained. This breach between the high and lower classes exploding in an unimpended violence is a theme that echoes to our days in different colors. As a proof other monarchs stopped the revolutions furor in their countries by authoritarian might.
Although other leaders understood better. When Prussia had its revolution years later, and the unification became the question of the day, and later the achievement, its minister president Otto von Bismarck created the welfare state as part of his plan of unification but also as he put it (and I am paraphrasing) "to buy the peace from the masses"
My point being that the context of both American and French Revolutions were different. So you can compare them well in some scarce aspects, really.
the way he delivers his last line is absoloute perfection
My departure will be a great relief to me, and no great loss to the public.
It will be a great loss to ME Thomas
@Richard Lopez This is what I have come to realize about Jefferson if you read the biographies and watch these shows. He is a little self absorbed..
@Richard Lopez Your funny as hell B lb😅😅👍
After resigning Jefferson used the newspapers to keep organizing & publishing attacks against Washington & Hamilton's policies, The criticism grew nasty as the years went on and sadly one of the damages these attacks produced was the termination of Washington & Jefferson's long friendship. Washington was personally hurt by many of them and he knew Jefferson was the 'behind-them', but Washington never mentioned that or criticized Jefferson by name. These 'attacks' (plus some 'anger' from Thomas Paine against Washington) could have been a part of why Washington left after two terms and eventually led a President Adams to back those horrible 'Alien & Sedition' acts later.
Did Wash and Jeff ever make up?
@@kevinh9110Nope. Washington spent the last of his days privately despising Jefferson, and Martha Washington would say that the day Jefferson visited her after the General's passing was the second worst day of her life.
If only people who disagree with each other today could behave the same way towards each other that Adams and Jefferson did
It's a movie. Or do you believe that they spoke like this to eachother.
@@Susieq26754it being a miniseries does not serve as an indication for how well or not well it represents those it portrays.
Also you can literally look up the letters they wrote to each other and see for yourself the show portrays their manner of addressing each other quite well. Like fuck sake you have resources at your disposal. Use them.
Lol. You're not aware of what was said when they ran against each other for President.
“He believes that man can only be governed by force and self interest”
Yes
pretty much
Such has The Fall made us.
Such a powerful show!
"Hamilton... He believes that men can only be governed by force and self interest".
Thomas Jefferson could see right through Hamilton like no other man could. I think he saw the grown-up orphan boy who was still looking for order and stability in life and thought that power and force where the way to install order.
Whereas Jefferson trusted the common man who will accept power only "under the consent of the governed."
See through? That was no disguise Hamilton was wearing. He genuinely believed what he was saying. And much of it was true. Jefferson and Adams wanted a total break with England because they did not want the slightest chance that the colonies would be re-absorbed back into the Empire. Hamilton wanted independence, but he wanted a strong relationship with Britain.
At the time, Jefferson and Adams were right. Britain would have taken the colonies back -- by any means it could bring to bear. Eventually though, our relationship with Britain would be very advantageous to us. There is a natural alliance between Britain and the US. We needed time and distance for that alliance bear fruit.
And now look at them, a minority in their own nation, happened almost INSTANTLY after the war/civil war.
So much for "our posterity".
@@ardalla535 Neither one was entirely right. Different aspects of their viewpoints ended up being adopted. We got a strong treasury and federal government, but many of Hamilton's more authoritarian ideas were rejected. Jefferson's ideal of the small yeoman farmer was a fantasy never to be, but his philosophy on the nature of man and government guides us to this day. They were complicated men who were not entirely right or wrong.
...and then Jefferson showed that he didnt care for rule of law either...watch his attempts to tar Aaron Burr with treason out of petty spite.
Jefferson TALKED a good revolution game, but of the three (Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson)...he behaved in the most aristocratic manner.
dclark142002, Jefferson may have overstepped his power in Burr’s treason trial, but I’m convinced Burr plotted treason against the U.S. His letter to Anthony Merry - discovered in the British archives in the 1960s, if memory serves me correctly - proved he was asking foreign governments for aide in overthrowing the U.S. The only thing Hamilton and Jefferson could agree on was that Burr was a dangerous man because he put himself above the country. History proved them right.
Jefferson never said 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' He probably would have agreed with it, but that is a misquote.
It's a historical drama, it's based on facts and not everything in it is going to be something they actually said. What you said about Jefferson probably agreeing with it says enough.
My favorite scene of the series.
It's a little known fact that pre-independence America was at roughly a 15° tilt to the rest of the world
We are forever indebted to the show for educating on such a little k own yet pressing fact of American history.
What does this mean?
@@cisium1184 It's a joke, large parts of the show are shot with the camera at a slight vertical angle, so called 'dutch angles'
@@transvestosaurus878 LOL you're right! Thanks!
Whose revolution? | Stannis's revolution!!!!
All who deny that, are his foes.
The reaction of Adams is very telling. Adams rarely showed outward emotions regarding personal relationships. In this case he softens rapidly when he hears his friend is going to resign. Great acting here.
The long conflict between Great Britain and France after the birth of the United States was probably one of the major factors contributing to it's early success. Neither France nor Britain had the resources to challenge the United States during the napoleonic wars and action by one of them would've undoubtedly led to the US allying themselves with the other. They engaged in some kind of untouchable neutrality. And when the war was over, the US had established itself as an independent nation, capable of defending it's sovereignty against the old european powers.
Eight years of rational administration by Washington enabled Adams to exercise executive measures to create a viable Navy. Had Washington exercised such measures, either Britain, France, or both might have sought to strangle the United States in it's cradle.
Mate what are you even waffling about right now? There was a theater of the Napoleonic wars in America it's called the war of 1812.... You know when we were at war with the British? And they sent their soldiers to burn the White House down? Yeah that was part of the Napoleonic wars buddy your historical analysis is completely wrong.
"They're one in the same, John! Are they not?" He wished.
No, Thomas, they are not
@Jay Slomine No. Thomas Paine wrote in his book The Rights of Man that the Declaration of the Rights of Man would amount to a "Regeneration of man." He argued that the current generation has no obligations to past generations, and that they are not bound to tradition. While in France he was the first to advocate for the abolition of the monarchy. That all amounts to a complete overthrow of all tradition. That is how you get the storming of the Bastille, the execution of Louis XVI, and the looting of Notre Dame. And Paine associated with the Girondins.
He did wish. This Jefferson, today remembered as a conservative icon, seems here an idealistic liberal.
@@timburris3008 Thomas Jefferson belongs to neither modern day political party he'd demand revolution.
@Samuel L. Jackson Imagine thinking that Thomas Jefferson: a rich plantation owner would look at modern day socialism and believe in it. The smartest minds in socialism refuse it at the end of their life or become morally corrupt. Even Orwell said if he could go back he'd be an anarchist. Socialism is a weak ideology just like other modern day ideologies. Until we realize all our ideas are nonsense we'll continue to have weak politicians while our modern day Jeffersons die never having been in politics.
When Mom and Dad argue. :(
@NaztyNayt Thomas Jefferson was an extremely brilliant man, but not the best president. Recall the failure of the Embargo Act of 1807, and recall also that Jefferson died while bearing massive personal debt. Jefferson's grave stone mentions three of the accomplishments which he is most proud including: Authoring the Declaration of Independence, The statute for religious freedom in Virginia, and Starting the University of Virginia. Notice the Presidency is not mentioned on his own tomb.
Despite the ubiquitous belief that Jefferson authored the Declaration, consider this: The original draft was written by Thomas Paine at Franklin’s request. Franklin provided Paine’s draft to Adams, who transcribed it into the copy that Jefferson marked up for the final version.
The accreditation of principal authorship to Jefferson was a political necessity-done with Paine’s consent and concurrence-because the members of the Continental Congress, despite their rhetoric about the rights of the common man, were mostly a class-conscious lot.
Unlike them, Paine was a commoner who owned no property. Even in July 1776, he was still not widely recognized as the author of Common Sense, which he had published anonymously six months earlier, and which turned what had started in 1775 as a rebellion for redress of grievances into a revolution for independence and self-governance. Before Common Sense, most of the other “founders”-including George Washington-were for reconciliation, and firmly opposed to independence.
Consequently, even among those who knew that Paine had authored Common Sense, he was considered little more than a political pamphleteer, and to some (including John Adams), he was despised as a rabble rouser. It just wouldn’t do to have it known that he was the true author of the Declaration.
Presumably, that’s why Adams transcribed Paine’s draft into his own handwriting, so it would appear to have originated within the Committee of Five. I don’t know how much Livingston and Sherman knew about the Declaration’s true source, but Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson certainly knew it came from Paine.
I’m sure that, to most folks, this is all heresy. “Everyone knows” that Jefferson wrote the Declaration...er, right? I can already anticipate the flames and awful mouthfuls of abuse this post will engender, even though I’m only floating it for consideration by those who might wish to research it for themselves, and not asserting it as incontrovertible fact.
I won’t list all the other arguents and evidence here...well, unless someone is curious and wants to have a rational discussion about it...despite the fact that “rational discussion” and “UA-cam comments” are not concepts normally associated with one another.
Anyhow, I’m not trolling. I would welcome an intelligent discussion as to why I believe the evidence suggests Paine authored the Declaration. But I’m not about to waste my time in angry arguing. 😎
@@Vito_Tuxedo stfu americans
@@Vito_Tuxedo Citation needed.
That should show you how important he thought the VA statute of religious freedom was. It was the basis for the 1st amendment.
Vito Tuxedo Where did you get this information?
“Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”
Apparently yes.
Mr. Jefferson, I had no idea France was one of our colonies! 😦
LMAO! I love Thomas. Particularly Stephen Dillane as Thomas. XD
Stannis the King never bent the knee even to the President himself!
this is my favourite Jefferson scene, it perfectly represents his stubborn idealism and commitment to liberty
Mass murders happened on a grand scale that has never been seen in France when those "idealist" of the pleb instincts got into power.
stop calling it idealism it's just resentment against those who are better off than they are
Washington and Adams were right.... our new Republic could not afford a foreign entanglement at that time .
It must have been hard to move away from the British yolk that had ruled America for 150 years before it was kicked out in 1776 that's for certain, but the US did thankfully eventually become it's own nation !!!!!
I think that Jefferson makes a good point here saying British in all but name when you think that they basically went right back trading with Britain. I think it was hard to fully break away which has not really happened in the finance aspect of things. Obviously we are own nation and have sovereignty and are a big bad super power but still kind of glued to the mother country 🤔😂
@@historygeekslive8243 You were and are a sovereign nation seperate from anything to do with Britain, so trading with us was and is like trading with any nation, nothing to do with mother country !!!
i always viewed jefferson’s resignation as a sad one. i consider myself a realist but it hurts when an optimist gives up hope…
This drama paints it as giving up hope, but historically it was more like Jefferson deciding that he can't cooperate his way into his utopia with men like Hamilton, so he needed to form his own party to fight back, with blackjack and hookers.
that 1 dislike was a federalist
"With this government im not certain we are a republic" If that isnt the truth...
Impartiality is always partial. So is the partial differential in the partition function, John.
I understand Jefferson's reservations . This system isn't perfect but it's still the best one we have. All others didn't work .
This is system certainly doesn’t work. What kind of system leads to crises, economic downturns, and depressions?
@@jakejerrison5181 all systems do
I don't know what you mean by "didn't work". Lots of "systems" prevailed for hundreds if not thousands of years. The American system of government prevailed for three hundred and fifty years, which makes it middling.
"all others didn't work"
work for wall street that is
“Let us descend together”🥹🥹
i forgot how fucking awesome this show was
Jefferson was wrong for the right reasons. Hamilton was right for the wrong reasons.
Nonsense speweth.
This doesnt make any sense. How was Hamilton right to believe in government through force and repression?
@@scparker6893 Hamilton did the stuff that wasn't popular but need to be done, founded a national army, injected sound financial principles into the American government, He was incredibly good with structure and economics, not so good with the libertarian aspects of America's founding.
@@josh18230 but like did we need a national army tho. In less than five years hamilton turned it on the nation's own citizens during the whiskey rebellion, which started all because of his whiskey tax. Ironic considering those same rebels had just fought off an oppressive government
Where can I get a copy of this series?
Hbomax. Or do a trial and use a program to download then cancel.
Why after 14 years, the aspect ratio is incorrect?
Where is this series available to watch?
It does sound like that combo, doesn't it? xD I know the TJ actor (Stephen Dillane) is British in real life, so that might be where the British is coming from...some people say that they find some British and American southern accents to be similar, so maybe that's why? Unfortunately none of his contemporaries described what the real TJ sounded like accent-wise, so we'll probably never know...
Thank you for the comment! :)
Dillane is from the west country....hummm
…...who has /ever/ said "British and Southern American to be similar"? I'm from the south, and in no particular order
Southerners think I'm from the North
Yanks think I'm from /Australia/
Australians aren't sure I'm not Canadian.
It's bizarre.
@Energised Voyages Very insightful.... thank you for the clarification....
Jefferson comes across as more of an anarchist here, or just never happy. More idealist than politician.
Jefferson was a true student of The Enlightenment.
I admire Jefferson’s desire for freedom for a nation’s people, but hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to Frances’ revolutions. France was no America, and it took its people down a bloody and cold route to gain freedom only for it to be striped from them again and again. France’s revolution devolved into barbarism and imperialism that tore the European continent into years of war. If only hindsight was available to him at this time. I suppose time would change his perspective on this matter.
It was not the French fault, it was from the monarchists in Europe
France also achieved it's own Revolution through actions that most did not like, violence. Violence by the people should only occur when the Governing body is using violence first. The Colonists did not want separation at first, they wanted ties but they wanted freedom and liberty, something the crown refused to give them. After repeated attempts through diplomatic relations and several acts of violence by Britain, did the Colonists finally have enough. The French people wanted the destruction of the Governing body without diplomatic talks. As you said, France destroyed itself in more ways than one which is why the US should have stayed out of it. The French Revolution was a tricky bitch in the eyes of the newly formed US and honestly, not getting involved was definitely the best option.
@@jeremycasper6672 The Frenchs did it because their people was poor, opressed, the French tried diplomacy, and even the revolution was a way to erradicate the wrong things, get rights and guarantee a constitutional government, both the Marsh and the Mountain wanted that, and just when Robespierre proclaimed that some corrupts (the Thermidorians) overthrow him, but then the royalist try a Counter-Revolution, so they asked the Jacobins for support, and leaded by a prominent Jacobin called Di Buonaparte they save the government, but then the Marsh and the Mountain (Jacobins) decided to overthrow the moderates and put Di Buonaparte (Bonaparte), in power, and altrought he early governated as a moderate, to avoid wars, he turned again to the left as soon as they declared war on him, finally the elections of 1804, where the ultimate sucess, of the revolution,
The constitutional and egalitarian state,
(For the 1795-1799 period)( i could detail it but is irrelevant to the concept)
at least France abolished slavery after their revolution, which is more than you can say for America
@@hiddenfromhistory100 And then shamefully reinstated it by force. Which is worse, a taste of honey or none at all? Napoleon later recognized the brutality of his policies regarding that (in the French Caribbean holdings) compromised his ability to make those places profitable to France again and later mused with great foresight that "One cannot keep people oceans apart as subjects for long." Shortly after he concluded the Louisiana Purchase with that curious fledgling nation and kept his attentions where it belonged in Europe.
Adams: Thomas
Captions: Toomas
Adams despite being uptight seems like a regular decent human to others but an absolute wolf to his kids. I despise that dichotomy.
0:42 - 1:07
Regardless if you agree or disagree that his description of Hamilton is accurate, Jefferson´s description it´s however on point to what Donald Trump is. Just replace "British" with "Russian".
I must go to Montecello
“They’re one in the same John! Are they not?”
No Thomas. They’re really not! Really gotta appreciate the irony of this “Freedom and Liberation” talk from Mr. Slave Owner. Jefferson was so full of his own shit.
Slavery was usually always at the forefront of the conversation regarding independence. John Adams touches on this but it doesn't really delve deep into how one of the biggest talking points against independence was what that would mean for slavery. Jefferson's views on slavery were complex for the time, as it was seen as a natural way of life. And as such excluded from the idea of liberty and freedom. However, we also know that slavery was always at the forefront of everyones mind when it came to the revolution.
It really is a great scene. Thanks for the comment! :)
This video reminds me of a scene from the movie Two days, one night starring Marion Cotillard. What’s funny is Marion Cotillard is extremely like Thomas Jefferson.
@RushLimborg, mainly he didn't like that the President wasn't given specified term limits in the Constitution, and also that a Bill of Rights did not accompany it (until a few years later, that is).
It's funny how none of the Founders got exactly what they wanted out of that Constitution. xD
That's the point of democracy: compromise of differences!
moxe You are talking about Republicanism. Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
@@alexanderchenf1 Republicism is a a form Democracy idiot
@@mrbrainbob5320 Not necessarily. It is in America's case and many other modern governments, but it is certainly possible to make a republic out of representatives that aren't directly elected, which would be undemocratic.
@@AllUpOns that's just nitpicking and doesnt change my original point. A republic in the modern sense is still a Democracy. The US is a representative democracy.
Thomas Jefferson would be dismayed at the towering behemoth that is the US government today.
Or that folks couldn't own black people anymore. 🤷♂️
@@authortanyareed I don't think that would be what would dismay TJ though. But I don't expect you to learn much from history anyways.
@@authortanyareed You're right, I guess that invalidates every opinion he ever held.
@@authortanyareed You're so ignorant about Jefferson. You realize he put the anti slavery clause into the constitution that was removed by Franklin. He ended the importation of slaves to the US and freed every single slave that he could by Virginian law that wasnt owned by his creditors. God forbid you read a history book or for that matter something without pictures.
@@authortanyareed He was against it in principal and actually condemned it in his first draft of the declaration, but he felt as though releasing his slaves would be a political statement that he was not prepared to make to his fellow southerners.
Underrated as fuck
I wonder what articles of the Constitution Jefferson considered "bad"....
Hard Boiled Entertainment Anything exceeding the bill of rights
He adamantly opposed the Elastic Clause because of it's ability to undermine the specifics of the other Articles and the Amendments.
Supremacy Clause
Earlier in the show, he says that the President is "a king in all but name" and that Congress has too little power in government. Jefferson likely would've preferred a parliamentary republic similar to that of Germany today.
The Necessary and Proper Clause
"I cannot descend daily into the arena to suffer martyrdom on every conflict"
How it feels defending truth and our freedoms in 2020 against the legacy media and Gen Z
Gen z might be the civil war generation lol. Half of us are extreme conservatives and the other side is fanatically left. As a member of the 04 gen z. There have been brawls inside and outside of school over politics. In what other generation was it widely expected and acceptable for one classmate to break the teeth of another over slight ideological differences.
And just like him you sound like a delusional, self-absorbed ponce.
@@Tevans333 Gen Z can't fight a war. Our generation is weak. Unless the war involves flaming people on twitter. Nobody's got the guts to pick up a gun.
What was Jefferson's role at this time--which he was resigning from?
Secretary of State
President Hamilton would've prevented the Civil War
@Tom CizzleSTFU I never watched Hamilton. Stop assuming shit over the internet. Jefferson was flirting with the Robspierre and his BS going on in France. Hamilton realized that a Unifying central government would be key to the success of the US. He didn't want to end up like Europe again or with another Articles of Confederation. Hamilton grew up in the West Indies, so he knew slavery was an issue that was going to rise again. Brush up on your history on historical figures.
@Tom Cizzle All the large government isn't from Hamilton, it's from Wilsonian policies from the early 1900s.
@Tom Cizzle like Adams said, the Constitution should accommodate the Banker and the Farmer.
We basically had a President Hamilton. Lincoln was an ultra Clay Whig/Hamiltonian. Only, he was a lot more ruthless than Hamilton ever was.
Mr. Hamilton would have us British in our economy, British in our forms of government, British John!!
In all but name..
hmm.. looks like Mr. Hamilton got his wish... more influential than we give him credit for. 😅😅😅👍
Whom'st doth crave revolution?
Was Jefferson a twerp?
Even back then, people couldn't set aside their fucking pride and agendas for the greater good. And as expected, those who seek compromises are talked down to like they did something wrong.
There are those who are stubborn out of principle and those who are stubborn out of pride and ambition. I like to think that Jefferson was the former but it really is impossible to say for sure
Jefferson was arrogant man who could not see what the french revolution would do and what motivated it. Washington and others could.
It wasn't arrogance. Jefferson believed whole-heartedly in revolution and hated the monarchy. He felt if people died during the revolution, it was blood necessarily spent. Jefferson was right to think that a France without a King was good for the US. He, obviously, didn't see the Reign of Terror coming, but neither did the French.
See folks, a republic, not a democracy.
Adams looks like he is in love with Jefferson. So romantic.....
Not.
Why not, I think they’d make an attractive couple... 😉
@@rebeccasusmarski2621 lol
No, seriously, Adams was bromantically in love; the problem was Jefferson was just not that into him. When Adams became president, he wanted Jefferson to help him, be his partner, in the presidency. After consulting with Madison, Jefferson declined because he disagreed with Federalist ideas. Thus any success Federalists had, Adams would get the credit, and Federalists would remain a powerful, political influence. Jefferson would not help Adams. Admas indeed became a "Party of One." He was too honest and frankly too naive about political parties' work.
It is one of the reasons after Adams loses the election of 1800 to Jefferson, the two do not speak for nearly twenty years. It is only through Abigail's reaching out to a mutual friend the two are reconciled.
America is England with a different flag
Dumbest thing Ive ever read. Is America a Unitary State and a Parliamentary Monarchy? No.
@believinginluv My way= I'm happy
Your way= You're happy
Compromise= Nobody's happy
Wrong. Compromise = We're all happy some of the time about some of the things.
Jefferson has an almost agricultural Marxist ideology in this series. Agriculture over industrial poverty, class struggle over national struggles, permanent revolution, etc. Wouldn't be surprised if Karl took great inspiration from Jefferson.
John Gannon
It explains a lot why Jefferson almost seemed to like the French Revolution more. The French Revolution was left wing and the American one was right wing. At least from the Anglo point of view.
You can't say that Jefferson was Marxs, because he was not. Agriculture was way people lived in the 1700s. You take that way people had no work. Jefferson was very much for small government and the for the people, where Adam is not.
@@ReformedSooner24 Left wing in 1700s was for smaller government, where the right was for big government. The alignment of both parties didn't change until Lincoln.
I doubt Marx would have agreed with the planters' aristocracy of the South. If I recall, he favored the North over the South during the Civil War, because a bourgeois revolution was still better than archaic agricultural aristocracy. Marx was pretty much about industrialisation, but with industries owned by the workers.
LittleImpaler Marx was also for small government. I agree with your broader point, but even still.
right
As Rob Fernandez noted - Funny how it's always the 'conservative' that reaches out to the 'liberal' and rarely ever 'vice versa'.
I am genuinely curious, because I am unsure, who do you consider to be the "liberal" and the "conservative" in this exchange? John Adams support for centralized government may make him appear farther to the left of Jefferson by the standards that we use to categorize political belief today while Jefferson is mostly revered by conservatives today, but at the time John Adams views were much more conventional and Jefferson was very much a radical.
@@ryanmccartney244 Jefferson was a full on enthusiast of the first 'progressive sledge' aka the French Revolution....regicide, state police, one party rule, nationalization of private assets, massacres .... the Vendee repression....the bolsheviks copied it to a 'T' esp. religious persecution but only changed their old style Russian calendar to the western one unlike the radicals who imposed 10 day week etc. seriously?
At this point, we need the founding fathers back in present day US to fix the mess we’re in now.
"Why are the slaves just walking about unattended by their masters?" Is all wed hear. These white dudes arent wholly enlightened. They inched america ahead in some ways but britain ended slavery well before we did, granted women the right to vote before we did. List goes on and on. The whole western world rushed past us in advancements of society as far as providing for the citizenry goes.
The founders would.be stuck in their ways and completely ill equipped to address todays issues.
@@philswaim392 Britain relied on America when it was financially in shambles after the revolutionary war and the Founding Fathers LITERALLY PREDICTED the end of slavery BY civil war! That question you posed is MAYBE a question I could see Washington and Madison asking, not Jefferson who condemned slavery(despite owning his own), not Ben who gave up slavery entirely at one point, and not Adams who NEVER owned a slave. And if it wasnt for MY favorite founding father, Ben Franklin, lightning would not be discovered as a form of electricity for several more generations and we wouldn’t even have skyscrapers if not for him, yet the british that you seem to admire so much, they spat on Franklin regardless. Of course the REAL reason I say America needs the founding fathers back is because America is gradually lacking its sense of principle more and more, something the founding fathers have that the current leading “fathers”(and by that I mean politicians) seem to lack a great deal of.
@@philswaim392 And the founders would 100% NOT be ill equipped to address today’s issues, especially Adams and Franklin. The fact that you even said that literally just proves they’re smarter than you as I suspected of many Americans.
@@PWNINSWAGMASTER predicting the end of slavery is really lacking moral fortitude. Ending it would have showed actual enlightenment.
And i think you really.give too much credit to ben franklin. You dont seriously think others around the world werent already discovering lightning as being the same thing as electricity? We knew so little about electricity anyway.
These were not gods or even entirely extraordinary men. In fact they were rather ordinary. The average high schooler is far more educated than Ben Franklin.
@@philswaim392 And you think they had the political power to do it? The first step to ending slavery in their lifetime would’ve been to compromise the entire democratic republic and turn it into a federalist/monarchy, which is exactly what the Founders were trying to avoid(with the exception of Hamilton). You’re asking for an impatient end to slavery, something Abraham Lincoln literally educated Thaddeus Stevens on why it’s reckless and stupid.
You’re not listening to my words carefully enough. I said, “And if it wasnt for MY favorite founding father, Ben Franklin, lightning would not be discovered as a form of electricity -->FOR SEVERAL MORE GENERATIONS
Polk was still the greatest President. Really.
"IF WASHINGTON ISNT GONE LISTEN TO DISSIDENT DICIPLINE THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE THIS KID IS OUT!!!!!"
China Now😢
The constitution of the United States was specifically designed to limit the representative power of the common man, in favor of granting power to the upper class, who were believed to be the only ones truly capable of leading with sound judgement.
The leading framers of the constitution were greatly concerned about the way the state congresses were obstructing the collection of taxes to pay off the war debt, and felt that the "rabble" could not govern themselves. With power being consolidated to a few, only the wealthy and well known would be elected, and "farmer john" would have little voice.
Man himself is corrupt.
ТТТhis mоvie is nоw avаilaаaable to wаtсh heeееre => twitter.com/3a1deb0b3f2bd738a/status/795841266034438144 Whosе Revоlutiоn Jоhn Аdаms and Thоmas Jеffееrsоn
You're right but looking at it wrongly. First off, they designed government in general to be limited and restricted, everyone would have equal rights and government little to no affairs in the public. The Republican system was chosen because the founders at the constitutional convention had all been fans of the 1776 Best seller, THE RISE AND DECLINE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, which was a historical masterpiece commentating on both the Greek Democracy, why it failed, the constitutional Republic of Rome and why it had been so powerful, then lastly why Rome failed.
To be fair the revolution was mostly led by that upper class which didn't like the british taxation. The fact the lower classes were also inflicted with the same problems and suffered even worse worked to their benefit.
However, they did try to build a government that would be more ideal and fair, one that would also prevent nobility from ruling both upper and lower classes. So despite the original motives not being initially pure, they at least tried to build something that would be give rights to everyone under the eyes of the government. Well except for slaves and the natives, they were without consideration for the most part for one reason or another. I find it rather tragic that Jefferson would be one of the cruelest presidents to the Native Americans despire writing the embodiment of USA ideology regarding basic rights.
That's why i say "Thank God for the Electoral College."
It provides that voice.
Thomas jefferson is such a whiner
*Hamilton* should never have existed in the first place. I only wished that he was accidentally shot dead in the war or dropped dead from diarrhea in the 1760s.
He set up a country that could actually last for centuries
weirdisspeltweird but embedding it with the flaws that will scar mankind for millennials. Id rather see a land divided for its efficiency than an broken union
just like my best friend and I. we are constantly arguing . keep in mind that our arguments are over the methods not the goals. we agree completely on the goals.
Methods or wordings?
I mean between you and your best friend, if your goal is the same?
Typical of men forced to remove themselves from home and hearth, these two friends interacted uninhibitedly at the public house. In Adams' case, he actively sought Abigail's opinion. In Jefferson's case, he was handicapped by operating on a single brain. A brain that may have been affected / effected by foreign influences and/or substances.