Live with Thomas Jefferson & Alexander Hamilton

Рет қаралды 17,083

Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 38

@bunnyharrison8014 4 жыл бұрын

Two hours late, but so happy to see Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hamilton!

@stevenhanson4151 4 жыл бұрын

Bill Barker is incredible! I learned so much from him at CW. Absolute Masterclass

@michaelmcclelland2208 4 жыл бұрын

I love these guys. They act, look, & sound so authentic!

@imaginationismagic6509 2 жыл бұрын

Hi Alexander Hamilton

@bunnyharrison8014 4 жыл бұрын

This presentation is outstanding!!! Puts me in mind "out of many, one.! Thank you!

@ednakelley814 3 жыл бұрын

This shows the difference between strict construction and loose construction. When Hamilton brought up the national bank I just knew Jefferson would ask "where is the authorization of a bank in the constitution." And I knew Hamilton's reply would be the elastic clause. This was fun. Hamilton should have ask Jefferson "where in the constitution does it give the president the authority to make a land buy? (Louisiana Purchase)

@TimothyIha 4 жыл бұрын

Fantastic!

@Travelswithgirlbear 3 жыл бұрын

I think our Congress needs to watch this.

@babybugs.I 19 күн бұрын

I dont know, i just find it halarious that two historical figures are just chillin on a zoom call 😂

@bdm1000 4 жыл бұрын

There is clearly some revisionist history going on here. Thomas Jefferson would not have praised Alexander Hamilton for his military conduct, and these people know this (or they should). Here's right from Jefferson's pen how he felt about Hamilton's military "accomplishments" (from The Anas.) (and note the air quotes surrounding "accomplishments"): "Had Genl. Washington himself written from these materials a history of the period they embrace, it would have been a conspicuous monument of the integrity of his mind, the soundness of his judgment, and its powers of discernment between truth & falsehood; principles & pretensions. But the party feelings of his biographer [Parson Weems], to whom after his death the collection was confided, has culled from it a composition as different from what Genl. Washington would have offered, as was the candor of the two characters during the period of the war. The partiality of this pen is displayed in lavishments of praise on certain military characters [Alexander Hamilton], who had done nothing military, but who afterwards, & before he wrote, had become heroes in party, altho' not in war; and in his reserve on the merits of others, who rendered signal services indeed, but did not earn his praise by apostatising in peace from the republican principles for which they had fought in war. It shews itself too in the cold indifference with which a struggle for the most animating of human objects is narrated. No act of heroism ever kindles in the mind of this writer a single aspiration in favor of the holy cause which inspired the bosom, & nerved the arm of the patriot warrior. No gloom of events, no lowering of prospects ever excites a fear for the issue of a contest which was to change the condition of man over the civilized globe. The sufferings inflicted on endeavors to vindicate the rights of humanity are related with all the frigid insensibility with which a monk would have contemplated the victims of an auto da fé. Let no man believe that Genl. Washington ever intended that his papers should be used for the suicide of the cause, for which he had lived, and for which there never was a moment in which he would not have died. The abuse of these materials is chiefly however manifested in the history of the period immediately following the establishment of the present constitution; and nearly with that my memorandums begin. Were a reader of this period to form his idea of it from this history alone, he would suppose the republican party (who were in truth endeavoring to keep the government within the line of the Constitution, and prevent it's being monarchised in practice) were a mere set of grumblers, and disorganisers, satisfied with no government, without fixed principles of any, and, like a British parliamentary opposition, gaping after loaves and fishes, and ready to change principles, as well as position, at any time, with their adversaries. But a short review of facts omitted, or uncandidly stated in this history will shew that the contests of that day were contests of principle, between the advocates of republican, and those of kingly government [Alexander Hamilton], and that, had not the former made the efforts they did, our government would have been, even at this early day, a very different thing from what the successful issue of those efforts have made it." If anyone doubts Jefferson was referring to Alexander Hamilton, he later goes on to say the following in his memoirs: "But Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption. In proof of this I will relate an anecdote, for the truth of which I attest the God who made me. Before the President set out on his Southern tour in April 1791. he addressed a letter of the 4th. of that month, from Mt. Vernon to the Secretaries of State, Treasury & War, desiring that, if any serious and important cases should arise during his absence, they would consult & act on them, and he requested that the Vice-president should also be consulted. This was the only occasion on which that officer was ever requested to take part in a Cabinet question. Some occasion for consultation arising, I invited those gentlemen (and the Attorney genl. as well as I remember) to dine with me in order to confer on the subject. After the cloth was removed, and our question agreed & dismissed, conversation began on other matters and, by some circumstance, was led to the British constitution, on which Mr. Adams observed “purge that constitution of it’s corruption, and give to it’s popular branch equality of representation, and it would be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man.” Hamilton paused and said, “purge it of it’s corruption, and give to it’s popular branch equality of representation, & it would become an impracticable government: as it stands at present, with all it’s supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed.” And this was assuredly the exact line which separated the political creeds of these two gentlemen. The one was for two hereditary branches and an honest elective one: the other for a hereditary king with a house of lords & commons, corrupted to his will, and standing between him and the people. Hamilton was indeed a singular character. Of acute understanding, disinterested, honest, and honorable in all private transactions, amiable in society, and duly valuing virtue in private life, yet so bewitched & perverted by the British example, as to be under thoro’ conviction that corruption was essential to the government of a nation."

@Brianbravo2000 4 жыл бұрын

That’s accurate enough