The Constitutional Convention | May to September, 1787

[@ryanmarshall4332]

You deserve more views. Don’t quit.

[@randomperson6988]

This series is a gold mine, very underrated

[@SpencerFH]

Totally agree

[@misterrea861]

This is the best summary of the politics of the Philadelphia Convention I've seen. Too many oversimplify the disputes or make the compromise look like smooth, pre-ordained outcomes. I would offer the caveat that it's important for us to understand that opposition to the slave *trade* had virtually nothing to do with opposition to the practice of slavery. These were two nearly fully distinct issues--one about the status of enslaved black Americans who didn't warrant the rights of free men, the other about the kidnapping of free men and bringing them to a different continent. This is why men like Mason and Washington were able to oppose the trade and see no conflict with their comfortable situation benefiting from holding Americans captive, while also expressing a desire not to allow the institution to move into the interior territories.

[@accruenewblue]

Nice to see you're back.

[@james_giant_peach]

I love your format of your video, it reminds me of Historia Civilis channel!

[@jtgd]

Exactly. Love them both now

[@TheNightWatcher1385]

It really is a miracle that America stayed united for near a century after the revolution.

[@nayrthomas.]

Solid video! thanks for sharing!

[@johandjerf9054]

What a great series and channel, really scratches my historia civilis itch, you even sound like him :D

[@johandjerf9054]

Wait what, how do you have so few subs?!? This is amazing content and you deserve so much more. Keep it up

[@abrahamtoulabou]

Thanks for this much needed education- subscribed!

[@BusyBodyVisa]

3:12 just a correction. A bicameral legislature was NOT a radical idea. By this time England already had a two body legislature with the lower house ,the house of commons, being elected by the people and the upper house, the house of lords, being there by birthrate and other non democratic reasons.

[@keystonehistory]

That is true, but I will say that, as you pointed out, the House of Lords was not answerable to the people. To be fair, senators were also fairly insulated by popular opinion until the 17th Amendment, but even so, state governments, who were subject to popular opinion, had a way to choose and replace their senators. I would bet that proposing this form of checks and balances to a British person during this period would sound very radical. Also, it is possible that there was a way for voters to exercise control over the House of Lords at this point. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a lot about its rules.

[@BusyBodyVisa]

@@keystonehistory really the Senate was a copy of the British House of Lords, the fact that this body is the one that does the most important tasks (advice and consent) shows that. Then the fact that the lower house controls the purse is from the Magna Carta in England. The reality is the founders simply didn't trust the general population to make wise decisions when it came to governance. That's why they set up the electoral college and the Senate to make the most important decisions.

[@jtgd]

@@BusyBodyVisa in spirit, but it’s non inheritable

[@treyperkins4528]

When you take the time to really examine it, the electoral college was one of the most incredible ideas ever. It’s very unfortunate that it has been so heavily politicized but the politicization of it really illustrates the issues and power of “the mob”

[@rc7625]

⬆ A right-winger loves the undemocratic Electoral College. Further news at 11 PM. Politicized indeed. *pOwEr Of ThE mOb* *wE'rE a RePuBlIc, NoT a DeMoCrAcY* (my favorite ignorant talking point)

[@Cat-bg2ge]

Not really, the electoral college or the popular vote. It is a popularity contest after all. One too many choice's. 😂

[@dahawk8574]

The Electoral College is one of the most brilliant inventions ever. Those who push for an across the board popular vote fail to grasp the most basic criticism of democracy: It is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Everyone at Philadelphia in 1787 was well aware of this. Yet so many today fail to remember, if they ever learned it in the first place. The Constitution was carefully designed to strike a balance between the will of the people while simultaneously protecting minority interests. Roger Sherman nailed it with his Connecticut Compromise. It should not even be called that. A much better name is: *The Connecticut Optimization.* The Electoral College itself reflects this same optimization.

[@The1ne2]

The electoral college decides the election, no? Why even have a popular vote if it means nothing? I'm failing to comprehend the popular votes purpose. Please help, I'm too dull & lazy to research this & comprehend it if I did. 😔

[@henriomoeje8741]

Gourvenor Morris is my hero for speaking up on slavery when others silent.

[@FriendofOnas]

Would love to see treaty conferences in Lancaster and Easton

[@keystonehistory]

I have a long term idea for a series that would tie into that topic really well, thanks for the idea!

[@KenMyles-xt2yw]

The information is enlightening, but what is the reason for the music ? It is a distraction.

[@dottisred]

this is seriously the best video of the history in the world, thank you so much👍🙏😀

[@stevencarpenter9991]

How many were Freemasons?

[@robertmather6152]

Very well done. Thank you.

[@jtgd]

9:16 dude is 100% right,

[@NYamutYN]

I would love to have been there, if there is ever an excuse to rewrite it in any way count me in as a witness!

[@suzannesmith5821]

Great video! Also anyone know the music in the video at 3:45?

[@johnglass7383]

EXCELLENT.

[@arangharibpour2014]

Well done!

[@spencer1980]

If we're ever able to get a convention off the ground, we should consider an amendment banning compound interest. It would be real simple to do. It would take one sentence. Charging interest or a free for a loan is fine. These lenders want to make a profit and cover any losses on loans the default. You should have to charge a flat rate over the principle. I don't think a lot of people realize how fast compound interest grows (for that matter, I don't think a lot of Americans understand what compound interest even is). Like even if you charge 50% above the principle, that would still be less than a loan at a modest interest rate. One of the reasons people are so fed up with student loans is that they've been paying them for a decade, and aren't even below the initial principle yet. Like we could do it with a law, but an amendment would be stronger. Can we just throw out compound interest altogether?

[@vornadopro6502]

Historian Civilis does lots of influences across YT I see.

[@nfpnone8248]

It’s not “We the People”! It’s “We the People of the United States” as in, “We the delegates of the united States, in congress assembled”, which has need the case from the beginning when the delegates of the States drafted and agreed to the Deliberation of Independence assembled in a General Congress. What you must understand is the United States, in congress assembled, is the Union, and the “United States of America” is the name of the confederacy, which is a discrete democracy of the States assembled in a congress. The Articles of Confederation was also written in a general congress and it established a legislative assembly of the States in a congress. The Constitution was written in a legislative assembly in a congress, and they agreed to improvements to balance the legislative process and make the cost of membership in the Union more equitable, forming a More Perfect Union of the States assembled in a Congress. What the preamble means is, the current Union wrote the Constitution of the United States in order to ordain and establish a More Perfect Union, for “The United States of America. The States as the Union amended their participation versus compliance agreement to form a More Perfect Union of the States. “The People” as individuals are not a party to the Constitution of the United States, as it only concerns “The People Collectively” which constitutes the States”, Huge Difference!

[@josephiscancelled2732]

Subscribed.

[@Cat-bg2ge]

Google has given me an Irish handle and I'm not Irish.

[@davidbillings5610]

It would of been strange all talking with British accents.

[@jtgd]

13:17 tell that to “states rights” politicians

[@Cat-bg2ge]

This? Is a more perfect Union?

[@geekmeee]

“We The People…” the three most misunderstood words kzbin.info/www/bejne/foDOpaSPatyMaqM (Start @2:00)

[@lucasbest1050]

5:40

[@Cat-bg2ge]

Thise men were British as British can be British.

[@kingseb07_YT]

Hi

[@SerikPoliasc]

Jackson Carol Hall Deborah Robinson Matthew

[@richardmartin9565]

Some inaccuracies 5 slaves did not equal 3 Whites. All the slaves were counted, then 3/5 of the total count was included to determine how many congressmen a state could have.

[@mattjenkins682]

Can you present a math equation that shows they aren't the same?

[@PintoRagazzo]

"It's not light blue! It's the color of the sky at noon in a clear day with no clouds."

[@니모-b6w]

Lopez Mary Taylor Barbara Martinez Dorothy

[@p.a.andrews7772]

BIASES

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Lewis Amy Wilson Joseph Smith Amy

[@apolloapostolos5127]

Yeup, sounds like communism to me.

[@harrykaant]

Notice how the people were never represented or mentioned in this process. Only mentioned as the mob. lol cringe

[@jtgd]

lol they’re intellectual elites who won a revolution. That rhetoric, especially when distrustful of groups should totally be expected