The Articles and the Constitution (US History EOC Review - USHC 1.4)

[@nelMB95]

You are the best teacher on earth .I'm having my Foundation of US exam and I've been watching your videos for more than 5 hours video after the other one and all of thel are so helpful.thank you so much greetings from Algeria

[@tomrichey]

+Manel MB So glad I can help! Best of luck on your exam.

[@boujllfatima8378]

Manel MB heyyy , can u plz send me ur subject ? I really need it

[@julyjey]

Hi from Argentina. i'm studying for a final exam on US history. thanks for your help. one question about 3/5 compromise: what does it mean "3/5 of a person"? thanks for or your help

[@tomrichey]

+julyjey For purposes of representation in Congress - so for every five slaves, that would count as three people for determining a state's representation in Congress. Compromise between Northern states who wanted no representation for slaves and Southern states who wanted to count send laced inhabitants for representation.

[@julyjey]

Thanks!!!!

[@danielw832]

thank you for another great upload

[@kiwibirdie7585]

I hope I do well on my eoc after watching all of these.

[@farrardm]

Is the Declaration of Independence a duly adopted federal statute that has never been withdrawn?

[@macvena]

David Farrar The Declaration predates the Federation by years. It isn't law, nor ever was. It's a philosophical argument for going independent from Britain. This is why we don't invoke the declaration when discussing law. We invoke the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

[@davidbeiler7520]

It was a resolution, not a statute.

[@CarlosHernandez-xo7js]

man your videos are really helpful thanks

[@charlychips]

Superb. All those thumbs down on Richeys videos, just ungrateful beings. Fantastic and very entertaining short lectures.

[@davidbeiler7520]

Since You Tube no longer tallies disapprovals (and erased previous ones), why does it still display the "Thumbs-down" icon?

[@runawaytrain7382]

love your vids, mate. can I just point out it was joe cocker and not the beatles that sang I get by with a little help from my friends. from your friend in mansfield, UK.

[@tomrichey]

+runaway train But it's on Sgt Pepper... I'm not even going to pretend to be a legit Beatles fan, so I'll have to take your word for it. Appreciate someone from the UK being interested in the US Constitution!

[@miguelangelgonzalez8986]

+Tom Richey I'm afraid you're right Tom. The song was written and recorded by the Beatles in 1967 and it's on the Sgt. Pepper's. Joe Cocker released a cover version in 1969, it might be more popular because it was the theme song to the 80s TV series "The Wonder Years".

[@tomrichey]

+Miguel Ángel González There's no need for you to ever be afraid of me being right, unless you hear me predict that Donald Trump is going to win the election, build a Wall, and Make America Great Again!

[@miguelangelgonzalez8986]

I was trying to use a polite expression but I've just realised that it only works when you disagree. You learn something every day. About Trump, definitely you want me not to sleep a wink! 😱😂😂

[@tomrichey]

+Miguel Ángel González We use this expression when we don't WANT someone to be right (like in my example above lol) or if we've previously disagreed with someone about something only to realize later that they are right.

[@gabrielsenechal4276]

TOM RICHEY!!!!!

[@sebastianpatriksson7814]

Are you speaking to an audiance too?

[@tomrichey]

+Sebastian Patriksson Yeah, I had a live audience during this series of lectures.

[@1Fireskull]

Great stuff !

[@tomrichey]

+1Fireskull Thanks, my friend! I feel like you're really going to enjoy this series. I'll be posting at least a few dozen more lectures over the next few weeks on various topics in US History - almost like a miniature survey course.

[@1Fireskull]

Tom Richey I love this topic of constitutionalism. Isn't it one of the most important ones in life? I sense that the USA is returning to solid fundamentals - or at least looking at them - and constitutionalism has been increasingly in the conversation. This happens every election cycle, but I haven't seen it like this since Ronald Reagan was president.

[@FaithfulPracticalHomesteading]

Superb

[@MrYorickJenkins]

Ha ha I dont think everyone here is necessarily a "student". I'm a 70 year old Brit just brushing up my general knowledge. You describe these matters very ably by the way.

[@sebastianpatriksson7814]

Actually, I'm not an american, i'm a swede. :)

[@macvena]

I really enjoy your lectures, but one thing makes no sense. The 3/5th clause. It is my sincere belief the the reference didn't deem anyone 60% of a person, but that the 60% represented only the restricted counting a portion of the population refered to as "other persons," i.e. slaves. Frederick Douglas agreed with this interpretation. Why perpetuate that the Framers would challenge the Slave States when the Northerners disputed the South's conflicted person/property argument by saying something so silly. The 18th century authors may not have been as egalitarian as we in contemporary America would like, but I find it doubtful that they would be so irrational as to suggest a person is part human, and simultaneously part something else. No, the idea of counting only 60% of a total number of a group, makes more sense, if they were seeking a compromise, to limit slave state influence at the Federal Level. Counting 3 out of 5 of people in bondage makes more sense than counting 2 legs and a torso of evey slave.

[@macvena]

Crystal W It is an unfortunate, but rather common narrative. While I have no doubt that people in the 18th Century were as prone to bias and prejudice as they are today, the idea doesn't hold true under examination. 1. The slaves were refered to as, "other persons." Well only people, i.e., human beings, are refered to as "persons." Therefore, the Constitution declared these others as people. That's a win in my book, and a huge contradiction to the bogus claim that contemporary "political scientists," haha, like to make. 2. The clause was outlining representation in the new Federal Congress, based on population, not voting legal status. Women and children were not enfranchised, but still counted towards population. 3. "Indians not taxed" were exempted. Why? They were not considered citizens, but rather autonomous, and while some who paid taxes must have been considered citizens and under the jurisdiction of the USA, based on this language. We know Native Americans were treated very badly, but their humanity was never expressly questioned. 4. Race was not mentioned in the Constitution at any time. 5. The "3/5ths Compromise," was a means of limiting the influence of Slave States in the new Federal government. It was therefore, and clearly, Anti-slavery. 6. The same Constitution also mandated an end to the Slave Trade, giving those who practiced it, 2 decades to get themselves out without force or great pains. 7. At the writting of the Constitution, only land owners could vote. Most white males had no more political power than women, children, blacks or Indians. Race was not a consideration for federal voting at the writing of the Constitution. I could go on for days, but it's simply more popular to trash America, the Founders, the Framers, the Constitution, the Flag, then to say, while very imperfect, the Framers did desire a more perfect union, and they likely expected help from posterity.