Yeah having a history vs for Lincoln and Washington is something I'd like to see, and I have a positive opinion of both so I wanna see how they go at it
No, it's a subversive turd. What's "problematic" is socialist history & its millions of deaths that it's caused. It's all about subverting a culture from within to destroy it so that tyrants can usher in yet another failed dystopia just like all the rest. Afterall, a revolution is just a circle - you always come back to the same problems that every other ideology has failed to correct as well. It's never about "power to the people" but convincing fools to take power from the people & giving more to tyrants & robbers.
I'm really glad you brought this series back. History is often a lot more complicated and messed-up than most people realize. Maybe you guys should put George Washington on trial next time. For a guy who was historically famous for being unable to tell a lie... he really lied a lot.
That story most likely never happen. If it did, Washington would have said that at any point in his life. He is not Abe Lincoln who did put on record his honesty...
Adam Ruins Everything is incredibly bias and has a strong political narrative to it. I would recommend not watching his content for educational purposes.
I think the answer is obvious: We should appreciate the good things Thomas Jefferson did but not idolize him for them. We should also condemn the bad things Thomas Jefferson did but not vilify him for them. People are complicated. No one is perfect, especially when you look at them from a modern lens.
That's how historical figures should be viewed in general. Unfortunately, we are taught a dumbed-down version of history today. Case in point; ted-ed's video on the Civil War
@@DragonGoddess18 - No, that's what the socialist, revisionist tyrants are trying to claim - as if they dug up all this "secret", past info themselves to expose their natures... As with anything else, you don't want to scar small children with history's unpleasantness so you start out with small facts, then as people get older, they're exposed to more info to form a more complete picture.
I'm glad they brought this series back. Another thing I am happy to see is that someone finally mentioned the point of measuring historical actions with the measuring stick of today doesn't paint these folks in the best light
It's a weasel argument. For one thing, if we stopped judging people because they had different values then we would never get anything done. The point of law is to judge with a common measuring stick and Andrew Jackson himself wrote that slavery was "a atrocious blight on society" but he was part of the system, he knew how to benefit from this system and the system rewarded him. Secondly, his face is still on the bills and his face is on Mount Rushmore and young kids are still taught about his heroics and his ideals are touted as the holy grail of USA democracy. Which means that he's very much part of modern society. But you're right. We should judge him according to both his standards and modern standards and not blindly follow propaganda that was taught to kids since the 1800s. And the conclusion should be something like this: Andrew Jackson: Important president, successful president, popular president* *But only for white voters at the time. Had the chance to make a difference but kept quiet so he could stay in power.
Its a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, yes, one should jugde a person by the standards of the time rather the the ones today as many standards are a product of the common perception of morality. On the other, just because something was a standard, doesnt mean its good. You can still be a terrible person, even if the actions you are committing are seen as normal. Certain things, even if legal, are just too horrible to justify. F.e., wifebeating was legal for a long time and even in some cases seen as a husbands right. But, not once am i going to forgive someone for doing it, because thats just something you can't justify
I'd say the best course of action is teaching kids that tells of their heroics and injustices from both our point of view and, more importantly, the views of the people in their region and culture at that time. It was sort of like how I learned about Andrew Jackson. He did defy the Congress causing the Trail of Tears and filled his cabinet with yes-men, but he also got rid of the national bank and was the only president to get rid of the national debt. Racism and misinformation aren't only reasons he was on the $20 bill for so long
Woodrow Wilson isn’t really like by contemporary standards. Ronald regan, that Chilean dictator, and argentinas would be more reasonable. (Oh yea president Marcos exist I guess)
Hold It! As a non-american and not exactly an historian, I would just like to say that I think some of the songs in 1776 and Hamilton with him are really good.
To borrow from another musical: "Elphaba, where I'm from, we believe all sorts of things that aren't true - we call it history. A man's called a traitor, or liberator. A rich man's a thief, or philanthropist. Is one a crusader, or ruthless invader? It's all in which label Is able to persist. There are precious few at ease With moral ambiguities, So we act as though they don't exist!"
I'd like to see a history versus on Eamon de Valera. He's quite similar to Jefferson in that he helped found his country but also made many mistakes and is quite controversial
Thomas Jefferson is a prime example of the phrase "If it's only one person who wants to change things for the better then that goal will never come true."
Actually Jefferson did attempt to end slavery in Virginia and newly acquired NW territory. But was unsuccessful. Yes he was not strong enough in his opposition, but does not mean he didn't hold those ideals.
Counter argument: if he really held to those ideals, he would have freed more than just 10 of his 600 slaves. How could he be expected to end slavery in Virginia when he wouldn’t even end it in his own household?
One thing I find interesting about American history is how unapologetic it is. Most other countries have long histories and it's very romanticized. After all, most leaders of other countries only had to directly deal with "their people," whereas American leaders had to deal with multiple ethnicities and races from the get go... And they completely fumbled it despite many of them being conscious of their own hypocrisy. Americans like to point out their own shortcomings and go "look how far we've come." Most other countries would rather pretend it never happened.
It's one of the things I love about the USA. We will happily cheer "USA No 1" to celebrate, but when it comes down to it, we know we are far, FAR from perfect and that the best we can hope for is trying to do a little better each generation.
The "greatest country on Earth" doesn't exist. Countries shouldn't compete with each other to see who is the best, but rather each country should try to be the best it can be.
Do everything in your power to ensure this History vs series never comes to an end. One of the best i've seen anywhere, unique and forces us to ask important questions about the past and about past historical figures that are celebrated
"Even if some people considered him a great man in his time, he doesn't have to be an icon in ours", is a fantastic line about the balance of honoring the figures of the past with contemporary morals
Hey Ted-ED, as a history geek myself, I really enjoyed this video! :D Loved how you tackled the controversy behind Jefferson. By the way, being a Chinese person myself too, do you think you can make a video about the Chinese philosopher Confucius (c. 551 - 479 BC) too? I think he'd be a good candidate. On one side, his philosophy has been credited with achieving peace for ancient China. He's also known for teaching kindness, humaneness, sincerity, and the Golden Rule. He's also known for encouraging education and meritocracy. But on the other side, critics have accused his philosophy of promoting blind obedience, child abuse, and sexism against women. In fact, a lot of intellectuals and Communists hated his guts in the 20th century and accused him of promoting an outdated feudal system that held Chinese society back. And even in the modern day, some critics blame his teachings for producing modern-day issues in East Asia such as a mental health crisis and an outdated education system. Do you think you could tackle that sometime? Thanks!
How could they accuse him of creating an outdated feudal system from over 2000 years ago? Of course its going to be outdated 2,500 years later just about everything from back then is outdated now. That's like blaming the person who invented the first wooden canoe for not inventing a steel engine powered ship with compass and radar, at the time the idea was revolutionary but things change and its up to the people after him to improve, change or discard it, not the man himself.
I think we are overlooking the most relevant contribution of Jefferson, which is injecting the idea of equality into the founding. The same text, the Declaration of Independence, was tremendously influential in both the movement to abolish slavery, and the civil rights movement.
No, no we’re not overlooking that. He said those words but didn’t believe them completly; he didn’t consider slaves to be people, and thus didn’t believe the rights of people established in the Declaration of Independence applies to them. Also, he didn’t invent those ideas. Plenty of enlightenment thinkers, most notably John Locke, were a great inspiration to Jefferson. Jefferson’s whole rights of life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness were a near replica of Locke’s ideas of life liberty and property. If Jefferson didn’t write those ideas, they still would’ve existed.
Glad to see this series again. My favoriter factoid regarding Jefferson is the quote on the Southeast portico of the Jefferson Memorial which refutes the 'Originalism' I feel is too often used today to excuse regressive policies. "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
@@vincegreen973 Read that again. He is *literally* saying that his views and policies will become obsolete as history marches on and therefore the documents & laws that were made in his time should be relegated to obsolescence
@@caelumvaldovinos5318 Originalism advocates for reading the constitution as it is and was. making amendments and changing laws to suit changes in circumstances does not conflict with originalism. in effect, originalism aims to prevent the misrepresentation of the constitution, which is actively occurring, as words in the English lexicon have their meanings adapted, broadened, and changed. when this happens, a modern individual reading the constitution can and will have a different interpretation of the meaning due to these discrepancies. Thus, nothing about that quote from Jefferson contradicts Originalism, unless you somehow think that he's saying its acceptable to misinterpret and misrepresent the constitution he helped make. His quote is nothing more than a cautionary warning against the risks of stagnation while clinging to the old way, when the old way may no longer be the right way.
That doesn’t change the fact that most of them owned slaves themselves. I can get why they didn’t want to do anything in the government to stop slavery - it would’ve prevented the US from being able to form, and they felt it was going to end anyway. But if they did actually see slavery as wrong, they could’ve at least freed their own slaves or something like that…
@@sisjsjwjwjsjsmjsjssj6285Jefferson was deeply in debt throughout his life. Slaves were considered valuable property and a significant part of his wealth. Freeing them would have meant a substantial financial loss.
I do love the balance between the rights and wrongs that both sides point out about Jefferson. Both admitting the good, and conceding the flaws of Thomas Jefferson, letting the viewer understand he wasn’t perfect, but he wasn’t a tyrannical figure either. In my view, he was a complicated man in a complicated time. There was so much one man can do, but in the time he lived and what he had to deal with in it, I can say for certain that he has done much more good than bad in his life. Could he have done better on some issues? Sure, absolutely. But in a time where so much was against him, he fought tooth and nail to do the best he can with whatever he had and help granted many new freedoms and rights for many people. And he was without a doubt, one of the most important figures in American history and one of the most impactful founding fathers.
I agree with you 100%. Thomas Jefferson was very flawed and honestly does deserve all of the criticism he gets but I still have lots of respect for the guy and I agree with him on lots of things.
We can, yes. But we don't have to. We can judge them by historical standards too, of Jefferson's contemporary Thomas Paine. Or, heck, why not judge them by the standards of the slaves he kept and ordered whipped and beaten? Can we judge him by their standards?
History vs. Ideas: -Julius Caesar. -Ramesses II. -Caligula. -Hannibal Barca. -Julia Maesa. -Pericles of Athens -Simón Bolívar. -Kösem Sultana. -Cyrus the Great. -Alexander the Great. -Kublai Khan. -Pocahontas.
@@alejandrosakai1744both were very well justified. The Gauls revolted for literally no reason despite Cesar and Labienus being very kind to them since they garrisoned at local tribes. Many swore to help the Romans but ended up betraying them to join Vercingetorix. His conflict with Pompey was also well justified. Pompey was trying to remove him from power in Gaul in direct confrontation with a law passed a decade ago. He then refused mutual disarmament and so Cesar was forced to return to Rome.
Love it how the music just stopped after he said “flesh and blood”, almost like the orchestra was dumbstruck to hear that he had secret children with his slaves
As Frederick Douglass said in his Epic Rap Battle with TJ: "Man, you did some good things; I ain't denying your fame/I'm just saying they need to put an asterisk next to your name!"
Thanks for bringing this back, as an Aussie going into the histories of James Cook and Lachlan Macquarie, would be interesting, some great deeds, and absolute atrocious actions, (such as the hanging of aboriginal's on trees for Macquarie's case.
I think it’s very difficult to pass judgement on Jefferson on his inaction against slavery whilst president. The state of the union following the revolutionary war was rather shaky. While all the states signed the Declaration of Independence some members of the union were growing concerned with the seemingly endless powers of the central government and the sense of losing autonomy. So if Jefferson had tried to abolish slavery during his presidency, it is likely that the union would’ve dissolved. Especially since many states stilled relied on slavery as their primary source of income whether it be direct or indirect. No state would abide by policy changes that would threaten their economic independence. So you can’t really blame Jefferson solely for the inaction against slavery.
@@erozionzeall6371 He probably had his heart in the right place in the beginning considering what he saw during the Tsarist regime, political suppression was fairly common and it wasn’t uncommon to see people carted away for speaking ill of the ruling class. So he much like many other liberally minded young men and women incensed by the decadent and superfluous upper class grew resentful and bitter, as one rightfully would. However, killing the Tsar and his family was probably not the best move he could’ve done to showcase his humanity though that order was not entirely his own. Lenin is a weird character in the sense that while he was a dictator he isn’t a dictator that we would expect. He wasn’t totalitarian, his regime might be totalitarian but the man Lenin certainly was not since not all of his orders were carried out in full. Though he was still the first amongst equals. But considering political suppression, state sanctioned executions, and armed conflict was common in the newly minted Soviet Union and this all occurred under Lenin’s jurisdiction it can be reasonably argued that Lenin did not start with bad intentions but eventually succumbed to the temptations of power and the inability to maintain his visions for society without using brutal tactics, the same tactics he criticized the Tsars for.
@@jackluck2538 I agree. Jefferson of course not without his faults. He clearly could’ve cleared his own stock of slaves had he adhered to his own reservations concerning the institution of slavery by he didn’t. For that he will always be remembered. However when it comes to the context in the video casting him as an engaged supporter of slavery and his inability to abolish slavery, I think it takes a little more understanding of the political climate of the US in that time to make an informed opinion.
Even freeing some of his slaves would have been difficult for him financially. Jefferson was land rich, but actually always in financial debt. Really, the only reason his estate wasn't repossessed at some point was his fame/stature. He needed the plantation to produce or he would have gone into poverty. Or, he could have sold some/most of his slaves off to get back to even, but that wouldn't exactly endear him to modern audiences either. Complicated, but essential, man.
I can’t believe I’ve never watched this series before, it’s such an interesting way to look at these historical debates! I’ll be sure to catch any future episodes.
Omg this so nice to watch I don't hate Jefferson he did some bad things but nobody perfect we need to look at their historical significance than morals
I'll admit to coming into many of these videos with an opinion already formed and set, but it is good to figure out what the opposing side thinks, what their arguments are. Please continue this series!
Videos I would like to see: History vs Winston Churchill History vs Confucius History vs Mother Teresa History vs Gandhi History vs Robespierre History vs Huey Long History vs Malcolm X History vs Yuri Kochiyama History vs Catherine the Great History vs Karl Marx History vs Mustafa Ataturk
2:10 Just because an issue is being avoided doesn't mean that the reforms don't mean anything. 2:51 He didn't have anything to do with that act. 3:15 The South was going to use any excuse to succeed whether it be something from Thomas Jefferson or anyone else, they just wanted to use whatever excuse they could use, and if Jefferson never said that then they would have just used something else to try and justify succeeding. 3:46 If you use that against Jefferson you also have to use that against every president from John Adams to Abraham Lincoln (Washington doesn't count because he was running unopposed). 4:16 Because there was no way to stop slavery from taking over in parts of Louisiana, I'm not trying to defend slavery but it was impossible for it not to spread. I think this is the worst History vs. video that there is. First, they bring up the race and slavery issue in places where it isn't even relevant and isn't even a counterargument, and second, they don't bring up a bunch of other ways they could've criticized Jefferson, how about the Embargo Act, how about the fact that he was a free speech advocate but tried to impeach a Supreme court justice (Samuel Chase) for having different political opinions than him, how about the fact that some people (both when he was alive and right now) claim that he killed his political hatchet (James T. Callender), because he wanted to testify what he and Jefferson did.
Even though Jefferson was contradiction. We still have to remember he did help found a country whose basis of ideals, that up until that point had not happened on a grand scale. And now those ideals have shaped the modern world
I am a high school student in Japan. And I am learning English. So, if I may be wrong grammar.,I am sorry. I appreciate learning English with this channel ‼️❤
Slavery was bad forever. Many civilizations millennia old were against it, so there's no reason for one to think a person supporting slavery was not wrong.
I like the question at the end - can we judge historical figures by modern standards? The answer is - yes AND no. It's important to realize in what times they were living in to try understanding their reasons and actions. But it's also important to notice all the flaws in them so to not put all their views on the pedestal as an example for future generations.
In my opinion, we should admire the aspects of a historical individual that are positive but condemn aspects of them that are negative. We shouldn't be completely positioned on only one side of the argument.
This information is what I think of when people say that we need to bring the country back to what the founding fathers intended. Especially when those people are non-white women or women in general. There are Congresswomen who say this often, and all I can think is, "The founding fathers didn't want you voting, let alone holding office. You really want to go back there?"
1:39 Nooo (I can't believe I have to do the attorney's job for him here) Thomas Jefferson was unable to manumit his slaves because slaves were considered to be part of the estate. They were part of the estate when Jefferson purchased it, and his seeing it up close was what let him to decry it as a moral wrong, at a time when hardly anyone in the Western hemisphere felt that way. The reason he was only able to manumit a relatively small amount of them was due to the fact that they were considered part of the estate, and while he technically owned at the estate he did not own the mortgages on them, which means that the ones he did free; he had to do so at Great personal cost to himself. Also, as governor of Virginia he tried to create incentives for plantation owners when they could, and that shtick about "no more inherited wealth" that the attorney talks about was done SPECIFICALLY for that process. He also gets the separation of church and state wrong. Jefferson actually meant the state should not interfere with religion. Not the other way around.
Hiya Ted ed, I am from Gibraltar 🇬🇮 and since we were British in 1704, we had (and still have) a lot of political problems from Spain 🇪🇸, especially during the days of the dictator Francisco Franco. I was wondering if you could do History vs Francisco Franco.
At 1:38, in the draft version of the Declaration of Independence, in The Ordinance of 1784, and in the Northwest Ordinance, Jefferson tried to ban slavery.
I like videos like this. We get to see the bad side of historical figures as well as the good, so we can understand how and why they acted and what they did
Thankyou for making another and i hope there's more they are your best work but after all. I don't like that you changed the thumbnails on some of the past ones thou. Oh yes nice jazzy title intro to.
Instead of using criticism to omit history, I believe one should first reach the intellectual level to assess it on an equal level; which many have not achieved with Thomas Jefferson, including myself.
It makes no sense to judge people with todays standards, its like saying that sumerians where incredibly undevelopped because they had no cars or constitutions, its just absurd
History vs. Josip Borz Tito The man is often known as the good dictator but still a dictator. He was critical to keeping Yugoslavia together, but the country fell into ethnic violence almost immediately after his death.
It’s been a while since this series was updated. I’m so glad you guys decided to continue it. For your next addition to the series may I suggest History vs Francisco Franco? He was was easily one of the most controversial leaders in Spanish history. Maybe even in the history of the world. He did a lot of good and a lot of bad during his time. He’s the perfect historical character for a series like this.
Should Jefferson be judged with modern values? That is the argument of this entire video. Presentism is a ridiculous way to approach history. Judging history is not understanding it.
"Well, I hear Mount Rushmore has a problematic past, too!" Now that's a great line for the Judge to end on.
Yeah having a history vs for Lincoln and Washington is something I'd like to see, and I have a positive opinion of both so I wanna see how they go at it
No, it's a subversive turd.
What's "problematic" is socialist history & its millions of deaths that it's caused.
It's all about subverting a culture from within to destroy it so that tyrants can usher in yet another failed dystopia just like all the rest.
Afterall, a revolution is just a circle - you always come back to the same problems that every other ideology has failed to correct as well. It's never about "power to the people" but convincing fools to take power from the people & giving more to tyrants & robbers.
No it isn’t
@@UlulvarCape Lincoln and Washington aren’t controversial so there won’t be a video on them.
@@UlulvarCape And here we go again having Roosevelt playing base 😁
I'm really glad you brought this series back. History is often a lot more complicated and messed-up than most people realize. Maybe you guys should put George Washington on trial next time. For a guy who was historically famous for being unable to tell a lie... he really lied a lot.
That story most likely never happen. If it did, Washington would have said that at any point in his life. He is not Abe Lincoln who did put on record his honesty...
And from what I've heard Washington treated his slaves on Mount Vernon pretty horribly.
I’m really glad this series got brought back too
Adam Ruins Everything is incredibly bias and has a strong political narrative to it. I would recommend not watching his content for educational purposes.
@@Fingolfin3423 You're not wrong. I've noticed that they focus a little to much on topics related to the U.S.A.
A new History Versus?! Like your best series? On my birthday? It's too good to be true!
Happy birthday
Happy birthday 🎂
Happy birthday 🎂 🥳
Happy birthday
Happy birthday! :D
I think the answer is obvious:
We should appreciate the good things Thomas Jefferson did but not idolize him for them.
We should also condemn the bad things Thomas Jefferson did but not vilify him for them.
People are complicated. No one is perfect, especially when you look at them from a modern lens.
a much better conclusion than the actual video
That's how historical figures should be viewed in general. Unfortunately, we are taught a dumbed-down version of history today. Case in point; ted-ed's video on the Civil War
We shouldn’t condemn the bad things about Jefferson dude. He’s a hero and we SHOULD idolize him
@@lizycole8999 not
@@snakey934Snakeybakey That is NOT how historical figures should be viewed in general
It's been a while
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
One of the best comments ever...
It took us 500 years to wait for another History on Trial video...
I can imagined a History on Trial video 500 years in the future. The judge is a robot, and the two lawyers are Futurama heads in jars.
I like how the lawyer isn't trying to demean Jefferson's deeds he's just trying to explain how he wasn't perfect
Nobody's perfect
Yeah,a lot of people worship the Founding Fathers and ignore the fact they did anything wrong,much less thought they had unpleasant flaws
@@DragonGoddess18 They we’re products of their times
@@DragonGoddess18 - No, that's what the socialist, revisionist tyrants are trying to claim - as if they dug up all this "secret", past info themselves to expose their natures...
As with anything else, you don't want to scar small children with history's unpleasantness so you start out with small facts, then as people get older, they're exposed to more info to form a more complete picture.
you're being sarcastic, right?
I'm glad they brought this series back. Another thing I am happy to see is that someone finally mentioned the point of measuring historical actions with the measuring stick of today doesn't paint these folks in the best light
I’m with you there
It's a weasel argument.
For one thing, if we stopped judging people because they had different values then we would never get anything done. The point of law is to judge with a common measuring stick and Andrew Jackson himself wrote that slavery was "a atrocious blight on society" but he was part of the system, he knew how to benefit from this system and the system rewarded him.
Secondly, his face is still on the bills and his face is on Mount Rushmore and young kids are still taught about his heroics and his ideals are touted as the holy grail of USA democracy. Which means that he's very much part of modern society.
But you're right. We should judge him according to both his standards and modern standards and not blindly follow propaganda that was taught to kids since the 1800s.
And the conclusion should be something like this:
Andrew Jackson:
Important president, successful president, popular president*
*But only for white voters at the time. Had the chance to make a difference but kept quiet so he could stay in power.
Applying today's standards is wokism at its worst. Enough already. It's nonsense.
Its a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, yes, one should jugde a person by the standards of the time rather the the ones today as many standards are a product of the common perception of morality. On the other, just because something was a standard, doesnt mean its good. You can still be a terrible person, even if the actions you are committing are seen as normal. Certain things, even if legal, are just too horrible to justify.
F.e., wifebeating was legal for a long time and even in some cases seen as a husbands right. But, not once am i going to forgive someone for doing it, because thats just something you can't justify
I'd say the best course of action is teaching kids that tells of their heroics and injustices from both our point of view and, more importantly, the views of the people in their region and culture at that time. It was sort of like how I learned about Andrew Jackson. He did defy the Congress causing the Trail of Tears and filled his cabinet with yes-men, but he also got rid of the national bank and was the only president to get rid of the national debt. Racism and misinformation aren't only reasons he was on the $20 bill for so long
Hello, can you make History vs. Woodrow Wilson or History vs. Oliver Cromwell, please! By the way, I learned a lot about Thomas Jefferson, thanks!
Woodrow Wilson isn’t really like by contemporary standards. Ronald regan, that Chilean dictator, and argentinas would be more reasonable. (Oh yea president Marcos exist I guess)
I would like History vs…
Oda Nobunaga
Richard Lionheart
Leonidas
Pericles
Alexander the Great
Walt Disney
history vs woodrow wilson would be literally overkill for the defense. like, how do you even defend such a person
Richard the lionheart would be very good because he bankrupted England and almost never stayed in it to rule over it.
I'd love to see a vid about Cromwell!
Hold It! As a non-american and not exactly an historian, I would just like to say that I think some of the songs in 1776 and Hamilton with him are really good.
Oh yeah, those songs are a bang for sure
They're good, but I wish some people remembered that it's just a musical and as such, fictional. There's a lot the musicals don't cover in history.
To borrow from another musical:
"Elphaba, where I'm from, we believe all sorts of things that aren't true - we call it history.
A man's called a traitor, or liberator.
A rich man's a thief, or philanthropist.
Is one a crusader, or ruthless invader?
It's all in which label
Is able to persist.
There are precious few at ease
With moral ambiguities,
So we act as though they don't exist!"
Facts😂😂😂😂 Daveed really helped Jefferson’s PR😂😂😂
Daveed Diggs is one of the best actors in Hamilton
I'd like to see a history versus on Eamon de Valera. He's quite similar to Jefferson in that he helped found his country but also made many mistakes and is quite controversial
Very controversial
Irish history is very interesting for me, I hope so too
Oooh yes. VERY much agree on a History vs. de Valera...
Great shout. Even a lot of Irish nationalists despised de Valera.
What was so controversial about him? I'm asking genuinely, I don't know
Thomas Jefferson is a prime example of the phrase "If it's only one person who wants to change things for the better then that goal will never come true."
Nope. If he did want to change things 500 people would have been a way he could've.
Huh? @@lebarondevalois605
Actually Jefferson did attempt to end slavery in Virginia and newly acquired NW territory. But was unsuccessful. Yes he was not strong enough in his opposition, but does not mean he didn't hold those ideals.
True
Counter argument: if he really held to those ideals, he would have freed more than just 10 of his 600 slaves. How could he be expected to end slavery in Virginia when he wouldn’t even end it in his own household?
One thing I find interesting about American history is how unapologetic it is. Most other countries have long histories and it's very romanticized. After all, most leaders of other countries only had to directly deal with "their people," whereas American leaders had to deal with multiple ethnicities and races from the get go... And they completely fumbled it despite many of them being conscious of their own hypocrisy.
Americans like to point out their own shortcomings and go "look how far we've come." Most other countries would rather pretend it never happened.
It's one of the things I love about the USA. We will happily cheer "USA No 1" to celebrate, but when it comes down to it, we know we are far, FAR from perfect and that the best we can hope for is trying to do a little better each generation.
The "greatest country on Earth" doesn't exist. Countries shouldn't compete with each other to see who is the best, but rather each country should try to be the best it can be.
Do everything in your power to ensure this History vs series never comes to an end. One of the best i've seen anywhere, unique and forces us to ask important questions about the past and about past historical figures that are celebrated
Plus, the judge's reactions are hilarious!
"Even if some people considered him a great man in his time, he doesn't have to be an icon in ours", is a fantastic line about the balance of honoring the figures of the past with contemporary morals
You realize blacks and Indians owned slaves too right?
he was the prime definition of barking no biting. preached but never did
I like this because it’s a place where both points of view can listen to the other without it turning into a screaming match.
I hope this comment section will be the same as well.
Hey Ted-ED, as a history geek myself, I really enjoyed this video! :D Loved how you tackled the controversy behind Jefferson.
By the way, being a Chinese person myself too, do you think you can make a video about the Chinese philosopher Confucius (c. 551 - 479 BC) too? I think he'd be a good candidate. On one side, his philosophy has been credited with achieving peace for ancient China. He's also known for teaching kindness, humaneness, sincerity, and the Golden Rule. He's also known for encouraging education and meritocracy. But on the other side, critics have accused his philosophy of promoting blind obedience, child abuse, and sexism against women. In fact, a lot of intellectuals and Communists hated his guts in the 20th century and accused him of promoting an outdated feudal system that held Chinese society back. And even in the modern day, some critics blame his teachings for producing modern-day issues in East Asia such as a mental health crisis and an outdated education system. Do you think you could tackle that sometime? Thanks!
Being so influential and with huge positive and negative aspects, he's a perfect candidate for History vs.
Confucius would be an excellent person to do a video on
Bruh controversy? No it isn’t. This video is wrong
How could they accuse him of creating an outdated feudal system from over 2000 years ago? Of course its going to be outdated 2,500 years later just about everything from back then is outdated now. That's like blaming the person who invented the first wooden canoe for not inventing a steel engine powered ship with compass and radar, at the time the idea was revolutionary but things change and its up to the people after him to improve, change or discard it, not the man himself.
that's a great suggestion.
You should History vs Martin Luther! (the monk) Or also History vs Shi Huangdi!
This is a great and educational series which you should do more often!
@ I meant the German theologian and priest from 1483 to 1546 who started the Protestant reformation.
I’m glad Sally was in this video. She really deserves to be recognized.
Hear, hear
Yeah even though her depiction (and children's depictions) were historically inaccurate because she was 3/4 white and her children were 7/8 white
@@bunnybird9342 I guess reality is really unrealistic.
i kinda feel like they shouldve at least mentioned that she was only 14 years old, iirc
Y'know the evidence for the existence of that relationship is really shabby.
I'm a Japanese student and reviewing American history for the Common Test for University Admissions next weekend, so it's exactly timely!
Ganbatte friend!
Good luck for your Tests and I wish you to succeed on it ! ^^
(From a French) 🥖🟦⬜🟥
good luck
@@100c0c they love america
Good luck! You can do this!
I think we are overlooking the most relevant contribution of Jefferson, which is injecting the idea of equality into the founding. The same text, the Declaration of Independence, was tremendously influential in both the movement to abolish slavery, and the civil rights movement.
No, no we’re not overlooking that. He said those words but didn’t believe them completly; he didn’t consider slaves to be people, and thus didn’t believe the rights of people established in the Declaration of Independence applies to them.
Also, he didn’t invent those ideas. Plenty of enlightenment thinkers, most notably John Locke, were a great inspiration to Jefferson. Jefferson’s whole rights of life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness were a near replica of Locke’s ideas of life liberty and property. If Jefferson didn’t write those ideas, they still would’ve existed.
@@sisjsjwjwjsjsmjsjssj6285massive freudian slip when you said “didn’t believe slaves were people” instead of saying african-amercians
@@CausticSpace that's not a slip, slaves are social class.
Glad to see this series again. My favoriter factoid regarding Jefferson is the quote on the Southeast portico of the Jefferson Memorial which refutes the 'Originalism' I feel is too often used today to excuse regressive policies.
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
It doesn’t refute anything dude
@@vincegreen973 Read that again. He is *literally* saying that his views and policies will become obsolete as history marches on and therefore the documents & laws that were made in his time should be relegated to obsolescence
@@caelumvaldovinos5318 Originalism advocates for reading the constitution as it is and was. making amendments and changing laws to suit changes in circumstances does not conflict with originalism.
in effect, originalism aims to prevent the misrepresentation of the constitution, which is actively occurring, as words in the English lexicon have their meanings adapted, broadened, and changed. when this happens, a modern individual reading the constitution can and will have a different interpretation of the meaning due to these discrepancies.
Thus, nothing about that quote from Jefferson contradicts Originalism, unless you somehow think that he's saying its acceptable to misinterpret and misrepresent the constitution he helped make.
His quote is nothing more than a cautionary warning against the risks of stagnation while clinging to the old way, when the old way may no longer be the right way.
Their is also one context they forgot to mention.
The founding fathers legitimately thought slavery was going to end naturally
That doesn’t change the fact that most of them owned slaves themselves. I can get why they didn’t want to do anything in the government to stop slavery - it would’ve prevented the US from being able to form, and they felt it was going to end anyway. But if they did actually see slavery as wrong, they could’ve at least freed their own slaves or something like that…
@@sisjsjwjwjsjsmjsjssj6285Jefferson was deeply in debt throughout his life. Slaves were considered valuable property and a significant part of his wealth. Freeing them would have meant a substantial financial loss.
@@thomasallister3446 Yeah a bunch of people would be freed, but what about his bank account?
I do love the balance between the rights and wrongs that both sides point out about Jefferson. Both admitting the good, and conceding the flaws of Thomas Jefferson, letting the viewer understand he wasn’t perfect, but he wasn’t a tyrannical figure either. In my view, he was a complicated man in a complicated time. There was so much one man can do, but in the time he lived and what he had to deal with in it, I can say for certain that he has done much more good than bad in his life. Could he have done better on some issues? Sure, absolutely. But in a time where so much was against him, he fought tooth and nail to do the best he can with whatever he had and help granted many new freedoms and rights for many people. And he was without a doubt, one of the most important figures in American history and one of the most impactful founding fathers.
I agree with you 100%. Thomas Jefferson was very flawed and honestly does deserve all of the criticism he gets but I still have lots of respect for the guy and I agree with him on lots of things.
"Can we judge historical figures by modern standards?"
That's powerful.
I would say no but the more closer to modern times they are it's easier to do so
We can, yes. But we don't have to. We can judge them by historical standards too, of Jefferson's contemporary Thomas Paine. Or, heck, why not judge them by the standards of the slaves he kept and ordered whipped and beaten? Can we judge him by their standards?
Right. Do better is our motto.
History vs. Ideas:
-Julius Caesar.
-Ramesses II.
-Caligula.
-Hannibal Barca.
-Julia Maesa.
-Pericles of Athens
-Simón Bolívar.
-Kösem Sultana.
-Cyrus the Great.
-Alexander the Great.
-Kublai Khan.
-Pocahontas.
Cyrus was a pure soul never did anything wrong
they already did a History vs Augustus, and covered the assassination of Julius Caesar in a separate video
@@awake6009 but never about his conquest of Gaul or his conflict with Pompey!
@@alejandrosakai1744 I know, just saying it's unlikely they'd get around to Julius Caesar any time soon
@@alejandrosakai1744both were very well justified. The Gauls revolted for literally no reason despite Cesar and Labienus being very kind to them since they garrisoned at local tribes. Many swore to help the Romans but ended up betraying them to join Vercingetorix. His conflict with Pompey was also well justified. Pompey was trying to remove him from power in Gaul in direct confrontation with a law passed a decade ago. He then refused mutual disarmament and so Cesar was forced to return to Rome.
been a while since the last case. I love this format when analyzing controversial icons in history.
“Well, nobody’s perfect.”
Some like it hot
It’s so awesome to see this series come back!
Glad to see another video from this series! History vs. Saladin would be an interesting one to do in the future.
Seriously missed these. No.3 is definitely a tough one.
Next History vs Otto von Bismarck please.
Thank you
Love it how the music just stopped after he said “flesh and blood”, almost like the orchestra was dumbstruck to hear that he had secret children with his slaves
As Frederick Douglass said in his Epic Rap Battle with TJ: "Man, you did some good things; I ain't denying your fame/I'm just saying they need to put an asterisk next to your name!"
Epic Rap Battles of History so cringe.
Also IRL Frederick Douglass didn't hate Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for bringing this back, as an Aussie going into the histories of James Cook and Lachlan Macquarie, would be interesting, some great deeds, and absolute atrocious actions, (such as the hanging of aboriginal's on trees for Macquarie's case.
I think it’s very difficult to pass judgement on Jefferson on his inaction against slavery whilst president. The state of the union following the revolutionary war was rather shaky. While all the states signed the Declaration of Independence some members of the union were growing concerned with the seemingly endless powers of the central government and the sense of losing autonomy.
So if Jefferson had tried to abolish slavery during his presidency, it is likely that the union would’ve dissolved. Especially since many states stilled relied on slavery as their primary source of income whether it be direct or indirect. No state would abide by policy changes that would threaten their economic independence.
So you can’t really blame Jefferson solely for the inaction against slavery.
What's your opinion on Lenin?
@@erozionzeall6371
He probably had his heart in the right place in the beginning considering what he saw during the Tsarist regime, political suppression was fairly common and it wasn’t uncommon to see people carted away for speaking ill of the ruling class.
So he much like many other liberally minded young men and women incensed by the decadent and superfluous upper class grew resentful and bitter, as one rightfully would. However, killing the Tsar and his family was probably not the best move he could’ve done to showcase his humanity though that order was not entirely his own.
Lenin is a weird character in the sense that while he was a dictator he isn’t a dictator that we would expect. He wasn’t totalitarian, his regime might be totalitarian but the man Lenin certainly was not since not all of his orders were carried out in full. Though he was still the first amongst equals.
But considering political suppression, state sanctioned executions, and armed conflict was common in the newly minted Soviet Union and this all occurred under Lenin’s jurisdiction it can be reasonably argued that Lenin did not start with bad intentions but eventually succumbed to the temptations of power and the inability to maintain his visions for society without using brutal tactics, the same tactics he criticized the Tsars for.
I agree he couldn't abolish it, but he could have easily freed his own slaves.
@@jackluck2538
I agree. Jefferson of course not without his faults. He clearly could’ve cleared his own stock of slaves had he adhered to his own reservations concerning the institution of slavery by he didn’t. For that he will always be remembered.
However when it comes to the context in the video casting him as an engaged supporter of slavery and his inability to abolish slavery, I think it takes a little more understanding of the political climate of the US in that time to make an informed opinion.
Even freeing some of his slaves would have been difficult for him financially. Jefferson was land rich, but actually always in financial debt. Really, the only reason his estate wasn't repossessed at some point was his fame/stature. He needed the plantation to produce or he would have gone into poverty. Or, he could have sold some/most of his slaves off to get back to even, but that wouldn't exactly endear him to modern audiences either.
Complicated, but essential, man.
Judge went "Pardon?!" and I guffawed
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson
As one New York politician said “your not going to find a perfect person back in those days” and that’s how we should look at president Jefferson
Epic Rap Battles of History said it best. You (Thomas Jefferson) let freedom ring, but never picked up the phone" - Fredrick Douglas erb
Followed by the second best “you did some good things. I ain’t denying your fame. I’m just saying they need to put an asterisk next to your name.”
If we don’t judge historic figures by modern standards then how are we supposed to know if we’ve grown as a civilisation.
Im so happy you guys brought this series back!!
This series is finally back.
I can’t believe I’ve never watched this series before, it’s such an interesting way to look at these historical debates! I’ll be sure to catch any future episodes.
Omg this so nice to watch I don't hate Jefferson he did some bad things but nobody perfect we need to look at their historical significance than morals
@@boymeetworlf3433 I don't hate him either but tbh I really think he had no self-awareness
I'll admit to coming into many of these videos with an opinion already formed and set, but it is good to figure out what the opposing side thinks, what their arguments are. Please continue this series!
This is an insane series; hope to see more of it. Thanks TED-Ed!
Should we judge past leaders and hero’s by modern standards? No. If we did that we would run out of people to look up to.
But they shouldn't be absolved of guilt either.
Videos I would like to see:
History vs Winston Churchill
History vs Confucius
History vs Mother Teresa
History vs Gandhi
History vs Robespierre
History vs Huey Long
History vs Malcolm X
History vs Yuri Kochiyama
History vs Catherine the Great
History vs Karl Marx
History vs Mustafa Ataturk
love these videos, please continue this series!
I love this series keep it up TED :)
2:10 Just because an issue is being avoided doesn't mean that the reforms don't mean anything.
2:51 He didn't have anything to do with that act.
3:15 The South was going to use any excuse to succeed whether it be something from Thomas Jefferson or anyone else, they just wanted to use whatever excuse they could use, and if Jefferson never said that then they would have just used something else to try and justify succeeding.
3:46 If you use that against Jefferson you also have to use that against every president from John Adams to Abraham Lincoln (Washington doesn't count because he was running unopposed).
4:16 Because there was no way to stop slavery from taking over in parts of Louisiana, I'm not trying to defend slavery but it was impossible for it not to spread.
I think this is the worst History vs. video that there is. First, they bring up the race and slavery issue in places where it isn't even relevant and isn't even a counterargument, and second, they don't bring up a bunch of other ways they could've criticized Jefferson, how about the Embargo Act, how about the fact that he was a free speech advocate but tried to impeach a Supreme court justice (Samuel Chase) for having different political opinions than him, how about the fact that some people (both when he was alive and right now) claim that he killed his political hatchet (James T. Callender), because he wanted to testify what he and Jefferson did.
Can you do a video of History vs. Alexander the Great please, I always wanted to see what was Alexander's life and background
when the world needed this series the most, it come back still as ever great
I am so glad the series is back!
If you don’t mind could you put Harry Truman on trial?
You gotta make one about Emperor Nero: A promising, strong leader with artistic soul, or a matricidal tyrant?
Even though Jefferson was contradiction. We still have to remember he did help found a country whose basis of ideals, that up until that point had not happened on a grand scale. And now those ideals have shaped the modern world
Jefferson had many personal problems, but he still is one of my favorite historical figures of the time.
I second this
We need History vs Hamilton to balance it out.
I like that this video series doesn't just present multiple arguments, but steel-mans both sides instead of strawmaning one side.
It could’ve mentioned how blacks and Indians owned slaves
What does ironmanning mean?
I'd love a history vs Marie Antoinette video this series is great
Your wish came true.
I am a high school student in Japan.
And I am learning English.
So, if I may be wrong grammar.,I am sorry.
I appreciate learning English with this channel ‼️❤
are we really applying modern ideas and values upon people 300 years ago??
Slavery was bad forever. Many civilizations millennia old were against it, so there's no reason for one to think a person supporting slavery was not wrong.
Try it with man from 3 thousand years ago.
I"m so happy this series is back!
I like the question at the end - can we judge historical figures by modern standards? The answer is - yes AND no. It's important to realize in what times they were living in to try understanding their reasons and actions. But it's also important to notice all the flaws in them so to not put all their views on the pedestal as an example for future generations.
Ahh it's been a while since released one of these. Always love this series
Next you should do History vs the famous abolitionist John Brown.
In my opinion, we should admire the aspects of a historical individual that are positive but condemn aspects of them that are negative. We shouldn't be completely positioned on only one side of the argument.
I am glad that you brought back the series. Can you do a History vs Jossip Tito episode?
History vs Ataturk, Suharto, Sukarno, Ian Smith as well
I hope this can become a frequent series again. Goodness knows how many American presidents probably warrant their own "History vs." videos.
I loved this series, hope to see more in the future!
Finally
I've been waiting about 2 weeks for this
This information is what I think of when people say that we need to bring the country back to what the founding fathers intended. Especially when those people are non-white women or women in general. There are Congresswomen who say this often, and all I can think is, "The founding fathers didn't want you voting, let alone holding office. You really want to go back there?"
I have been waiting for a new one of these for years!
Hello everybody! I hope you're having a great day 💫💫
Thanks fam, I am now.
Oh my god, I did not even know ted-ed made these kinds of series, now I need more!!!!
Do Woodrow Wilson! That guy has done way more damage than what most of us realize!
But realistically, what could he have done against slavery?
This is a super fun concept! I thoroughly enjoyed this!!! Need more!
1:39 Nooo (I can't believe I have to do the attorney's job for him here) Thomas Jefferson was unable to manumit his slaves because slaves were considered to be part of the estate. They were part of the estate when Jefferson purchased it, and his seeing it up close was what let him to decry it as a moral wrong, at a time when hardly anyone in the Western hemisphere felt that way.
The reason he was only able to manumit a relatively small amount of them was due to the fact that they were considered part of the estate, and while he technically owned at the estate he did not own the mortgages on them, which means that the ones he did free; he had to do so at Great personal cost to himself.
Also, as governor of Virginia he tried to create incentives for plantation owners when they could, and that shtick about "no more inherited wealth" that the attorney talks about was done SPECIFICALLY for that process. He also gets the separation of church and state wrong. Jefferson actually meant the state should not interfere with religion. Not the other way around.
Jefferson in Hamilton: What did I miss?
I was hoping this series wasn’t dead. Fingers crossed that we get a History vs. Robespierre video.
Hiya Ted ed, I am from Gibraltar 🇬🇮 and since we were British in 1704, we had (and still have) a lot of political problems from Spain 🇪🇸, especially during the days of the dictator Francisco Franco. I was wondering if you could do History vs Francisco Franco.
YES!!!! I love this series!! please keep making new ones!
I would love to see you do History vs Huey Long, he’s a very important figure in American history and very contentious to this day.
Long>>>>>>>>>>>Ann Runt
At 1:38, in the draft version of the Declaration of Independence, in The Ordinance of 1784, and in the Northwest Ordinance, Jefferson tried to ban slavery.
History vs. Mao Zedong, s'il vous plait.
No defense there
I hope the series continues I'm just way too invested in this
I like videos like this. We get to see the bad side of historical figures as well as the good, so we can understand how and why they acted and what they did
Thankyou for making another and i hope there's more they are your best work but after all. I don't like that you changed the thumbnails on some of the past ones thou. Oh yes nice jazzy title intro to.
Jefferson is an icon, we cannot judge through our modern lens.
Instead of using criticism to omit history, I believe one should first reach the intellectual level to assess it on an equal level; which many have not achieved with Thomas Jefferson, including myself.
It makes no sense to judge people with todays standards, its like saying that sumerians where incredibly undevelopped because they had no cars or constitutions, its just absurd
This video was so helpful for a presentation I've been working on.
How can you judge a man born 300 years ago by today's standard.
History vs. Josip Borz Tito
The man is often known as the good dictator but still a dictator. He was critical to keeping Yugoslavia together, but the country fell into ethnic violence almost immediately after his death.
It’s been a while since this series was updated. I’m so glad you guys decided to continue it.
For your next addition to the series may I suggest History vs Francisco Franco? He was was easily one of the most controversial leaders in Spanish history. Maybe even in the history of the world. He did a lot of good and a lot of bad during his time. He’s the perfect historical character for a series like this.
Should Jefferson be judged with modern values? That is the argument of this entire video. Presentism is a ridiculous way to approach history. Judging history is not understanding it.
History on Trial: *uploads*
Everyone: Its been 84 years...
I love this Series