You are an awesome teacher! Love the energy & the direct, simple, straight-forward lesson & facts. It makes my studying & understanding so much easier! Thank you!
Hey Tom, I think your point about protectionist tariffs is too general for Hamilton and the Federalists. Hamilton wanted to protect infant industries until they were able to compete with Britain, initially concerning textiles. Overall, he preferred bounties to Tariffs since he still supported imports. This is one distinction that keeps Hamilton out of the traditional Mercantilism camp of many of his contemporaries and immediate predecessors in Britain. Great video! Thanks!
+Bill Wixon Thanks for your thoughts. Hamilton's proposals certainly weren't as radical as those of the generations of American protectionists that followed (Clay and later the Republicans).
Hi Tom, could you tell me if this answer I wrote makes sense (I'll type important points). Q: Choose one the following three: states' rights vs strong federal (central) government, foreign relations, or economic policy as the main cause for the emergence of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican party during 1800-1812...then... a.) explain why you chose that... b.) identify two specific examples that support that c.) choose one of the two choices you didn't choose and explain why it was not as good of a choice I chose states' rights vs strong federal (central) government and used the National Bank and Supremacy Clause as my two examples...but I got a 6/10. Please tell me what you would have said and if my answer should make sense.
I'm always curious about a world where Hamilton became President instead of Jefferson. America would probably be a much more interventionist and, if he lived long enough, Hamilton might just be the type to run for a 3rd and 4th term, breaking that precedent. Who knows?
+Alex Xavier Steel - D These are all some very interesting hypotheticals. Hamilton didn't have a musical back then and wasn't well liked, even among members of his own party. It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if he had been the Federalist Party's candidate for President in 1796 (although I'm not sure if he would have qualified as a natural born citizen).
+Tom Richey It would have to assume he'd actually win the election which might not be as hard as it could be since land requirements kept non-elite, his biggest rivals, from voting. An endorsement from Washington, though he'd never give it, would probably win him the election. There's a few scenarios he could win in and if he were President and not just an advisor he could make some pretty drastic economic changes and probably would expand executive power quite a lot. But again, who knows?
+Alex Xavier Steel - D I really like Hamilton, but I don't think he would have made a very good President. He was a great statesman but a pretty horrible politician. He was too quick to perceive slights, and though he was often right he would alienate many around him who may not immediately see things his way. In short, he was one of the greatest administrators in history who was lucky enough to be in the right time and place for his talents.
+1Fireskull The problem is that those political parties would end up having semi-monopoly of political power and they seem to be more likely to be influenced by big money from corporations/lobbyists.
Josh Velasquez In Europe, the Far Left funds numerous political parties which are forced in many cases to form political coalitions in order to gain majority votes in legislatures. Now, of course, The European Union is bypassing much of the influence of national legislatures. Often the E.U. bosses make the decisions with absolutely no vote from the common European.
You are an awesome teacher! Love the energy & the direct, simple, straight-forward lesson & facts. It makes my studying & understanding so much easier! Thank you!
Quickly becoming my favorite history channel
I look forward to going over this again at some point in the near ( 2020 ) future
Hey Tom, I think your point about protectionist tariffs is too general for Hamilton and the Federalists. Hamilton wanted to protect infant industries until they were able to compete with Britain, initially concerning textiles. Overall, he preferred bounties to Tariffs since he still supported imports. This is one distinction that keeps Hamilton out of the traditional Mercantilism camp of many of his contemporaries and immediate predecessors in Britain. Great video! Thanks!
+Bill Wixon Thanks for your thoughts. Hamilton's proposals certainly weren't as radical as those of the generations of American protectionists that followed (Clay and later the Republicans).
Wow I feel like I just took a year long history class in 15 minutes
Hi Tom, could you tell me if this answer I wrote makes sense (I'll type important points).
Q: Choose one the following three: states' rights vs strong federal (central) government, foreign relations, or economic policy as the main cause for the emergence of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican party during 1800-1812...then...
a.) explain why you chose that...
b.) identify two specific examples that support that
c.) choose one of the two choices you didn't choose and explain why it was not as good of a choice
I chose states' rights vs strong federal (central) government and used the National Bank and Supremacy Clause as my two examples...but I got a 6/10. Please tell me what you would have said and if my answer should make sense.
Heyyyyyyy homeboy Hamilton
Does anyone else not like the picture of Jefferson on the $2 bill compared to his normal picture?
Why are there... two pianos in the background... where was this even filmed...
I'm always curious about a world where Hamilton became President instead of Jefferson. America would probably be a much more interventionist and, if he lived long enough, Hamilton might just be the type to run for a 3rd and 4th term, breaking that precedent. Who knows?
+Alex Xavier Steel - D These are all some very interesting hypotheticals. Hamilton didn't have a musical back then and wasn't well liked, even among members of his own party. It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if he had been the Federalist Party's candidate for President in 1796 (although I'm not sure if he would have qualified as a natural born citizen).
+Tom Richey It would have to assume he'd actually win the election which might not be as hard as it could be since land requirements kept non-elite, his biggest rivals, from voting. An endorsement from Washington, though he'd never give it, would probably win him the election. There's a few scenarios he could win in and if he were President and not just an advisor he could make some pretty drastic economic changes and probably would expand executive power quite a lot. But again, who knows?
+Alex Xavier Steel - D I really like Hamilton, but I don't think he would have made a very good President. He was a great statesman but a pretty horrible politician. He was too quick to perceive slights, and though he was often right he would alienate many around him who may not immediately see things his way. In short, he was one of the greatest administrators in history who was lucky enough to be in the right time and place for his talents.
I am so glad that we don't have the seemingly unlimited number of political parties allowed in some European nations.
+1Fireskull The problem is that those political parties would end up having semi-monopoly of political power and they seem to be more likely to be influenced by big money from corporations/lobbyists.
Josh Velasquez In Europe, the Far Left funds numerous political parties which are forced in many cases to form political coalitions in order to gain majority votes in legislatures. Now, of course, The European Union is bypassing much of the influence of national legislatures. Often the E.U. bosses make the decisions with absolutely no vote from the common European.
I'm only here for Hamilton
I believe in states rights. Small fed government! Trump 2020
Agree with you Trump 2020
Except on states rights
*The Kansas-Nebraska Act*