World News Headlines

Coverage of breaking stories

How can one best describe new federalism?

source : quora.com

How can one best describe new federalism?

Please enable Javascript and refresh the page to continue

Which of the following best describes the concept of work

Which of the following best describes the concept of work – Which of the following best describes the concept of work? a force applied to an object.Section 1 1. In Application Express User roles are best described as which of the following? A logical work area which is associated with one or more Oracle database schemas. An HTML interface that exists on top of database objects such as tables or procedures.Free- full length test + 15 concept videos + 200 short videos + 12 SC e-books!

Answer Sections 1 and 2 Quiz Application Development Foundations… – 16. Which of the following statements best describes Reuters Insider ? B. Reuters Insider provides live and on-demand programming delivered over a cutting edge video player. 29. Which 2 of the following are true when describing the Adfin Analytics in Thomson Reuters Eikon Excel.Which of the following describes the principle of checks and balances A. congress must make sure that the national budget is balanced. Which best describes Robert Owen's political ideology and its impact on business? He was a Communist who believed business could only flourish if the…7. Consider the following statements on the practice of federalism in India. If you have any query regarding CBSE Class 10 Social Science Political Science (Civics) Chapter 2 Federalism Multiple Choice Questions with Answers, drop a comment below and we will get back to you at the earliest.

Answer Sections 1 and 2 Quiz Application Development Foundations...

Which of the following describes all values of x for which 1 | Forum – Math. Statistics Q&A Library Which of the following best describes the form of the sampling distribution of the sample proportion? A. When standardized, it is exactly the standard normal distribution.Which of the following statements accurately describes federalism? Federalism is sharing powers between national and regional governments. Gonzales v. Raich, dissenting opinion. Which of the following statements best describes the view point conveyed in the quotation?Federalism: Federalism is a system of government in which the power is divided between a central authority and various constituent units of the country. The main features of federalism are as under: (i)There are two or more levels of government.

Chapter 2 Constitution Study Guide Flashcards | Quizlet
AP Government & Politics Ch. 1 & 2 Unit Exam 1. In A Republic, “usurpations  Are Guarded Against By A Division Of The
Federalism In Canada
UNIT 3 Q&A.docx - Creating A Republic How Would A Patriot Suspicious Of  British Tyranny Be Most Likely To View The Government Under The Articles Of  | Course Hero
Federalism Study Guide Flashcards | Quizlet
American Politics Today Core 4th Edition Bianco Test Bank
Answer Each Question About The Benjamin Rush Prima... | Chegg.com
American Government 2015-16 Test Information Guide | CLEP – The College  Board
AP Gov Flashcards | Quizlet
Principles Of The Constitution | Interactive Worksheet By Amanda Donato |  Wizer.me
CRA Practice Exam

Federalism: Crash Course Government and Politics #4 – مرحباً أنا Craig وهذا "كراش كورس": حكومة وسياسات.
اليوم سوف نتحدث عن مفهوم أساسي في الحكومة الأمريكية: الفيديرالية -الاتحادية- آسف، لا لست متأسف
أنت لست حتى مهدد بالإنقراض بعد الآن.
الفيدرالية/الاتحادية محيرة قليلاً لأنها تتضمن
كلمة "اتحادي" كما في الحكومة الاتحادية/الفيدرالية وهو ما أعتدنا أن نصف به حكومة الولايات المتحدة ككل. وهو نوعاً ما نقيض ما نقصده عندنا نقول "الفيدرالية / الاتحادرية"
حائرون؟ أبحثوا عنه في قوقل. هذا الفيديو غالباً سوف يأتي، وعندها شاهد
هذا الفيديو، أو فقط تابع مشاهدة هذا الفيديو. (موسيقى) حسناً، ماهي الفيدرالية؟ بكل بساطة، هي فكرة أن
في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية تقسم السلطة الحكومية بين حكومة الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية و حكومة كل ولاية الحكومة الأمريكية، الحكومة الوطنية
تسمى أحياناً بالحكومة الفيدرالية/الاتحادية بينما حكومات الولايات تسمى "حكومة الولاية"
هذا بسبب أن الولايات المتحدة عملياً يمكن أن تُعتبر
"اتحاد بين ولايات". لكن هذا يعني أشياء مختلفة لأشخاص مختلفين. على سبيل المثال،
"اتحاد بين ولايات" يعني شطيرة لحم بالنسبة لي. سأخذ شيطرة "اتحاد بين ولايات" من فضلك، مع بعض
من "تاتر توت"، شكراً. أنا غبي نوعاً ما. في النظام الفيدرالي الحكومة الوطنية
تهتم ببعض الأمور، على سبيل المثال الحرب مع بعض الدول، إيصال البريد
بينما حكومة الولاية تهتم بـ أمور أخرى مثل رخصة القيادة، رخص الصيد،
رخص الحلاقة، رخص أطباء الأسنان رخص للقتل – لا، هذا جيمس بوند.
وهذا في أنجلترا. وآمل أن الولايات لا تفعل ذلك. بسيط للغاية أليس كذلك؟ ربما ليس كذلك.
لشيء واحد، هناك نواحي حكومية يتولاها كل من الحكومة الوطنية وحكومة الولاية. الضرائب،
النشاط الحكومي المفضل للأمريكان كمثال هناك ضرائب فيدرالية وضرائب محلية "الولاية".
لكن يصبح الأمر أكثر تعقيداً لأن هناك فيدراليات مختلفة،
يعتمد على أي فترة من تاريخ أمريكا تتحدث عنها. أخ!
ستان! لماذا التاريخ محير كثيراً؟ أخ! ستان، هل سوف تخبرني؟
هل تستطيع التحدث ستان؟ مع ذلك، وبشكل أساسي، هناك نوعان من الفيدرالية
فيدرالية مزدوجة/ثنائية، والتي لا علاقة لها بـ "آرون بور". عادةً تشير إلى
فترة التاريخ الأمريكي الممتدة من تأسيس أمتنا العظيمة إلى "الاتفاق الجديد".
والفيدرالية التعاونية والتي كانت القاعدة منذ 1930.
دعونا نبدأ بالأسهل وننظر إلى الفيدرلية الثنائية/المزدوجة في "فقاعة التفكير" من 1788 حتى 1937 كانت الولايات المتحدة تحت
نظام الفيدرالية الثنائية/المزدوجة والذي يعني السلطة الحكومية كانت مقسمة بدقة وصرامة
بين حكومة الولاية والحكومة الوطنية لاحظ أني لم أقل فصل، لأني لا أريدك أن
تخلط بين الفيدرالية و "فصل السلطات". لا تفعلها!
في الاتحادية الثنائية هناك بعض الأمور التي تقوم بها فقط الحكومة الوطنية وأمور أخرى
تقوم بها فقط حكومات الولايات. هذا يسمى أحياناً "اختصاص/صلاحيات" الحكومة الوطنية كان لديها صلاحية التحسينات الداخلية
كالطرق والقنوات بين الولايات معونات للولايات، الرسوم الجمركية والتي هي
ضرائب على الواردات، وبالتالي تقع تحت العنوان العام للسياسة الخارجية.
الحكومة الوطنية أيضاً تمتلك أراضي عامة وتنظم براءات الإختراع والتي لابد أن تكون وطنية
لتقديم حماية للمخترعين في كل الولايات. ومن أجل أنك تريد أن يكون دولار فضي في "ديلاوير" يساوي دولار فضي في "جورجيا"
الحكومة الوطنية أيضاً تتحكم بالعملة. حكومة الولاية كان لها رقابة على قوانين الملكية
قوانين الميراث، القوانين التجارية، القوانين المصرفية قوانين الشركات، الضمان، قوانين العائلة
الذي يعني الزواج والطلاق، المبادئ الأخلاقية أمور كالتعري العام والشرب -والذي يبقيني
تحت المراقبة-، الصحة العامة التعليم، القوانين الجنائية والتي تتضمن تحديد
ماهي الجريمة، وكيف تحاكم الجرائم إستخدام الأراضي والتي تتضمن حقوق المياه والمعادن
الإنتخابات، الحكومة المحلية ترخيص المهن والوظائف، بشكل أساسي
ما يتطلب قيادة سيارة أو فتح حانة أو يصبح حلاق أو يصبح "جيمس بوند". لذا، تحت الفيدرالية الثنائية، حكومة الولاية
لديها صلاحيات على أمور أكثر مما لدى الحكومة الوطنية هذه السلطات على الصحة، السلامة، والأخلاقيات
تسمى أحياناً "سلطة الشرطة/الأمن" وعادةً ما تخص الولايات.
بسبب التقسيم الدقيق بين النوعين الفيدرالية الثنائية تسمى أحياناً
"فيدرالية الطبقات"، لذيذة. و تتكون من تقليد "حكومة محدودة"
التي يعتز بها الأمريكيون. شكراً "فقاعة التفكير". الآن، بعض منكم قد يتسائل Craig
من أين تحصل الحكومة الوطنية على صلاحية فعل أي شيء له علاقة بالولايات؟
حسناً، بسرعة ودون تفكير دستور الولايات المتحدة في المادة1 القسم8 بند3
يعطي الكونغرس سلطة "لتنظيم التجارة مع الدول، وبين الولايات، ومع قبائل الهنود." هذا ما يعرف به "بند التجارة"
والطريقة التي قد فسر بها هي أساس الفيدرالية الثنائية الفيدرالية التعاونية. أغلب القرن الـ19 المحكمة العليا قد قررت
أن تقريباً كل محاولة من قبل أي حكومة -فيدرالية أو الولاية-
لتنظيم النشاط الإقتصادي من شأنه أن ينتهك "بند التجارة". هذا يعني بشكل أساسي أنه كان هناك
القليل من التنظيم للأعمال التجارية أصلاً. حريــــــة! وهكذا بدت الأمور، مع إتباع الولايات المتحدة
نظام الفيدرالية الثنائية، مع القليل من التنظيم الحكومي، والحكومة الوطنية لا تقوم بشيء
سوى الذهاب للحروب أو شراء وغزو مساحات هائلة من الأقاليم
وإيصال البريد. ثم "الكساد العظيم" حدث، وفرانكلين روزفلت والكونغرس
أصدروا "الصفقة الجديدة" التي غيرت دور الحكومة الفيدرالية بشكل كبير.
"الصفقة الجديدة" جلبت لنا "الفيدرالية التعاونية" حيث الحكومة الوطنية تشجع
الولايات والمحليات بالسعي إلى أهداف محددة وطنياً، الطريقة الأساسية التي تقوم
الحكومة الوطنية القيام بذلك من خلالها هي إنها دولارات يا جماعة. المال هو ما أقوله.
Stan هل أستطيع جعلها تمطر؟ صحيح؟ حسناً, إني أفعلها. يصادف أن أحمل نقود في يدي الآن.
أوه حسناً, خذي "أموالي الفيدرالية" أيتها الولايات! يا منظم!
-هيئة تنظيمية- هذا المال الذي تعطيه الحكومة الفيدرالية
للولايات يسمى الإعانات الإعانات قد تستخدم كالجزرة تشجع الولاية
على تبني سياسة معينة، أو العمل كعصا عندما تحجب الحكومة الفيدرالية الأموال/التمويل
عند قيام الولاية بما لا تريده الحكومة الفيدرالية الإعانات تسمى عادةً بالحاسمة/القطعية
لأنها تعطى للولايات بأهداف محددة كالمواصلات أو التعليم
أو التخفيف من وطأة الفقر هناك نوعين من الإعانات الحاسمة:
اعانات المعادلة واعانات المشروع وفقاً لاعانات المعادلة، الولاية تحصل على مساعدات
مالية بكمية محددة بناءً على معادلة رياضية المثال الأفضل لهذا النوع هو طريقة الرفاه القديمة
التي أعطيت للولايات المتحدة بموجب البرنامج المسمى المساعدات للأسر التي تعول أطفال
Aid to Families with Dependent Children / AFDC حصلت الولايات على كمية محدد من المال لكل فرد مصنف فقير، كلما كان عدد الفقراء أكثر كلما زادت كمية المال التي حصلت عليها الولاية. معونات المشروع تستوجب على الولايات
تقديم مقترحات من أجل الحصول على المساعدات. الولايات تتنافس على مجموعة موارد محدودة
اليوم معونات المشروع أكثر شعبية من معونات المعادلة غير أياً منهما هو بشعبية معونات المبنى
حيث تعطي الحكومة "مكعبات الليغو" وأنت تبني أشياء بالمكعبات!
أنه وقت جيد. لا لا، الحكومة الوطنية تعطي الولاية
حزمة كبيرة من المال لشيء كبير كالبنية التحتية التي تبنى بالإسمنت والحديد
ليس "بمكعبات الليغو" والولاية مخولة لإتخاذ القرار بشأن صرف المال.
النوع الأساسي للفيدرالية التعاونية هو "الجزرة والعصا" والذي يسمى أحياناً
بكعكة ماربل الفيدرالية لأنها تخلط الحكومة الفيدرالية وحكومات الولايات
بطريقة تجعل من المستحيل الفصل بينهما. الفيدرالية، يالها من بهجة مطبوخة. مفتاح اللغز لذلك هو -أنتم خمنتموه- الدولار/المال.
لكن هناك جانب آخر للفيدرالية التعاونية وهو ليس تعاوني جداً
وهذا هو الفيدرالية المنظمة. بموجب الفيدرالية المنظمة: الحكومة الوطنية
تنشئ أنطمة وقواعد تلتزم الولايات بإتباعها. أمثلة على هذه القواعد -والتي تسمى أيضاً مهام- أنظمة EPA -هيئة حماية البيئة-
والحقوق المدنية، والقانون المتعلق بالأمريكيين ذوي الإعاقة. أحياناً تعطي الحكومة المال للولايات لتنفيذ هذه القواعد وأحياناً لا تفعل، وعليها أن تمتثل في كل الأحوال.
ذلك يسمى "مهمة غير ممولة" أو كما أحب تسميتها "المهمة الغيرممتعة "
لأنه بدون المال لا وجود للمتعة. مثال جيد لهذا هو OSHA -إدارة السلامة والصحة المهنية-
التي على أصحاب العمل أتباعها. الولايات لا تحب هذا والكونغرس حاول فعل شيء
بخصوصهم (بقانون إصلاح المهام الغير ممولة) أو ما يسمى بـ UMRA لكن ذلك لم ينجح. في بدايات القرن الـ21 يعيش الأمريكان تحت الفيدرالية التعاونية
إلى جانب بعض مجالات الأنشطة المنظمة بشكل كبير. هذا امتداد من الفكرة الأساسية للفيدرالية التي ستبقي الحكومة الوطنية صغيرة
وجعل أغلب المهام من اختصاص الولايات. إذا كنتم تتابعون السياسة الأمريكية
وأنا أعلم أنكم تفعلون ذلك فإن فكرة الحكومة الصغيرة
يجب أن تبدو مألوفة لأنه المبدأ الأساسي لكثير من المحافظين والليبراليين في أمريكا. بينما قام المحافظين بالكثير من الإنجازات
السياسية المهمة خلال فترة السبعينات مفهوم جديد للفيدرالية -والذي كان نوعاً ما مفهوم قديم للفيدرالية-
أصبح شائعاً كان يسمى بالفيدرالية الجديدة -يا للمفاجأة-
وقد روج لها الرئيسين نيكسون وريغان للتوضيح فقط: تسمى بالفيدرالية الجديدة
وليس مفاجئة الفيدرالية الجديدة. الفيدرالية الجديدة ببساطة تعني إعطاء سلطة أكبر للولايات
وقد تم عمل ذلك بثلاث طرق أولاً: معونات المبنى/الوحدات تمنح الولايات سلطة تقديرية
لتقرير ما تفعله بالمال الفيدرالي وما هي الطريقة الأفضل لتعبير عن السلطة بدلاً من صرف الاموال؟
أو عدم صرف الأموال حسب ما تقتضيه الحالة. شكل آخر للفيدرالية الجديدة هو (التفويض)
وهي عملية عطاء الولاية والحكومة المحلية صلاحية تنفيذ القوانين
"نقل السلطة من الحكومة الوطنية إلى مستوى الولاية" أخيراً: بعض المحاكم قد أختاروا السبب في الفيدرالية
بناءً على التعديل العاشر، والذي ينص على ما يلي: "السلطات لا تفوض للولايات المتحدة أو تحظر بواسطة
الدستور، بل السلطات محفوظة للولايات، أو للشعب" فكرة أن بعض السلطات كالشرطة
-وقد تحدثت عنها سابقاً- تختصُ بها الولايات قد تم أستخدامها
كنوع من تجميد أو كبح بند التجارة. حسناً وكما ترون, أين وصلنا مع الفيدرالية
اليوم هو نوعاً ما معقد الرئيس ريغان وجورج دبليو بوش وكلينتون يبدون مؤيدين
للفيدرالية الجديدة ومعونات الوحدات/المبنى. لكن جورج دبليو بوش بدا أنه يدفع بإتجاه الفيدرالية المنظمة
بالقوانين كـ "قانون عدم التخلي عن أي طفل". وتأسيس وزارة الأمن الوطني. أنه من الأسلم أن نقول بأننا سنظل نعيش تحت الفيدرالية التعاونية
إلى جانب مجموعة من الأنظمة واللوائح المضافة. لكن الكثير من الأمريكان يشعرون
بأن الحكومة الوطنية كبيرة جداً ومكلفة وليست كما أرادها ضائغو الدستور. إذا كان في التاريخ أي عبرة فهي أن نظام الفيدرالية الثنائية/المزدوجة
مع معظم الحكومة في يد الولايات على الأرحج لن يحدث. لسبب ماً، من الصعوبة حقاً إقناع المؤسسات
أن تتخلى عن سلطاتها بمجرد حصولها عليها. أنا لن أتخلى أبداً عن هذه السلطة. شكراً على المشاهدة
أراكم الأسبوع القادم. أنتج "كراش كورس" حكومة وسياسات
بالتعاون مع PBS Digital Studios. دعم "كراش كورس" الحكومة الأمريكية يأتي من Voqal
Voqal تدعم المنظمات غير الربحية التي تستخدم التكنولوجيا ووسائل الإعلام لتعزيز العدالة الاجتماعية.
تعلم المزيد عن مهمتهم ومبادراتهم في Voqal.org. أنتجت "كراش كورس"
بمساعدة هؤلاء الناس اللطيفة. شكراً على المشاهدة. أنت لم تساعد في إنتاج هذا الفيديو على الإطلاق, أليس كذلك؟
لا, لكنك جلعت الناس يستمروا في المشاهدة حتى النهاية. لأنك كلب رائع. .

HIST 2111 16 – Founding Fathers – This is lecture 16; in this lecture I want
to talk a little bit about the founding fathers.
I’ve got us into the Revolutionary War,
before we go further, I thought it would be beneficial to you if we at least discussed
some of these prominent figures in a little detail, not much. This is a survey class,
so we have limited time, and I have to be very selective here. I’m only going to talk
about maybe a half a dozen people. I just want to give you a sense of who they are,
why they’re significant, sort of where they fit into these large events in the founding
of the United States. We’ll start with George Washington. Of course,
he’s a Virginia planter. Washington is one of the older of the founding fathers, born
in 1732, and of course, he dies in 1799. The first President of the United States, he served
2 terms, trained as a land surveyor. I mentioned earlier that he served in the French and Indian
War. He married into a “good family” as they say, Martha Dandridge, and served in
the Virginia House of Burgesses as a younger man. He is chosen, as I mentioned in our last lecture,
to command the Continental Army in 1775. Washington’s career as a military commander is a mixed
one. His initial combat with the British was successful in driving them out of Boston Harbor.
But then he is caught in the battles around New York City and is driven, by the British
Army, out of New York City. He flees across the Hudson down into New Jersey and Pennsylvania,
trying to keep the Continental Army intact. He will revive both his reputation and the
Revolutionary cause during Christmas of 1776, when he launches a surprise attack against
hired Hessian mercenaries on the Delaware River. This successful attack will revive
the spirits of the American people, the Continental Congress, and of Washington and his army. Washington fought a series of set-piece battles
against the British. These were usually unsuccessful, or at best draws. His greatest success as
military commander will come in the Southern theatre of the War, on the York-James Peninsula,
as he traps a large British army there – under Lord Cornwallis. Cornwallis’ surrender here at Yorktown in
1781; this will be the beginning of the end of the Revolutionary War. This defeat signals
to the British Parliament that perhaps this ongoing Revolution is going to be too expensive,
too long in duration, and is going to cost too much blood for the British to continue.
So the Battle of Yorktown is significant because it begins to turn the British away from prosecuting
the War to a way of ending the War. Of course, George Washington serves as our
first President by acclamation; he is the one guy that everyone trusts. He is the one
man who is viewed as incorruptible and he established as the first President of the
United States in 1789. Now just prior to that, in 1787, he presided over the Constitutional
Convention, the original government of the United States. The so-called Articles of Confederation
had been revealed to be too weak to hold this union of states together. So delegates from the various states gathered
at Annapolis, in Maryland, and they sought someone to preside over this convention, someone
that had the requisite authority and the trust of all the delegates. And that, of course,
is Washington. Washington’s government was comprised of
Alexander Hamilton as the first Secretary of the Treasury; Thomas Jefferson as the first
Secretary of State, a fellow Virginia planter; and of course, General Knox as the first Secretary
of War. Perhaps the greatest thing that Washington did as President, besides his maintenance
of this government, this first government under the Constitution, is how he exited public
life. Remember, Washington leaves and goes home to Mount Vernon to resume his chores
as a farmer and a planter in 1796. At the same time in France, of course, we have the
emergence of Napoleon. It’s difficult to imagine Napoleon ever sort of voluntarily
giving up power and walking away from it. In our own century, we have seen great and
powerful men who simply cannot be removed from office other than by death, and it’s
very unusual for a man to reach the stature of George Washington, to have the authority
that he has, the respect and admiration of his fellow citizens, and then to simply walk
away from power. This is most unusual in human history, and it sets a wonderful precedent
for how power is to be relinquished in this country in the future. We will in time, of
course, establish term limits on the President. But Washington’s two terms set a precedent
that is followed all the way up until the middle of the 20th century, when Franklin
Roosevelt ran and was elected 4 times to the Presidency. We’ll get into that later. Washington
dies in 1799. He apparently caught pneumonia while doing chores on the farm there at Mount
Vernon, and passed in 1799. I want to talk about a few other figures here. John Adams – Someone once said that if Washington
fought the Revolution, that John Adams thought the Revolution, and there’s some truth to
this. Washington in the field with a Continental Army, while Adams is theorizing about government,
trying to secure loans for the new country, trying to create alliances for the new United
States. Adams, of course, is an attorney from Boston, born in 1735 and will live a long
life, dying in 1826. The second President of the United States; the first Vice President
under Washington. He attended Harvard. He’s very active in Boston politics, attacking
the British taxation policies. He is a delegate to the Continental Congress. He defends the
British troops who fire upon the Bostonians at the Boston Massacre. He helped guide the
Declaration of Independence to fruition. It is, in fact, Adams who suggested that Thomas
Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence, just as he had recommended George Washington
to be the Commander of the Continental Army. He’s the first U.S. Minister to Great Britain,
and of course, his own Presidency is a one-term affair taking place in the larger context
of the French Revolution, and much of his Presidency is taken up with potential conflict
with France, which he manages to avoid. One of the more controversial aspects of Adams’
Presidency was the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. This was in response to the
turmoil brought about by the French Revolution and by the emerging divisions of sentiment,
here in the United States, over the issues that the French Revolution brought to the
forefront. Adams, of course, would retire, go back to
Boston, and live out the rest of a long and fruitful life. The third figure I want to mention here is
Benjamin Franklin. Franklin is the oldest of these founding fathers, born in 1706, dying
in 1790. A true renaissance figure, a printer, a writer, a diplomat, editor, inventor, a
scientist, easily the most famous American of his time, much admired by the French, a
very skilled diplomat, very skillful in arranging alliances and loans for the young country.
He spent a good deal of his adult life in Europe doing these things, a leading cultural
figure in the United States, and easily the most famous. He invents the Franklin stove.
He founds a philosophical society that will morph into the University of Pennsylvania.
I think he’s the first Postmaster General for the colonies. I believe he founded the
first fire station, or fire unit for the colonies. Just a remarkable man who had his hands in
a lot of different affairs here. He helped to draft the Declaration of Independence.
He negotiated the treaty that ends the War with Great Britain in 1783. He is a member
of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. And it’s interesting that his son, Franklin’s
son, had been the governor of New Jersey, and was a tory, as they were called, that
is English colonists in America who sided with the mother country and did not seek rebellion
or independence. This of course, this difference in politics, will break the Franklin family,
so that Benjamin Franklin loses his relationship with his son over politics. Another figure that you should be familiar
with is Alexander Hamilton. Now he’s one of the younger founding fathers, in fact,
he was born in the West Indies. He was seen by leading figures on the island of Nevis,
where he was born, as something of a prodigy. He ran an emporium there. He mastered different
currencies. He assumed the habits of command at an early age. A college fund was created
for him. He was sent to, I think it was called Kings’ College at this point; it became
Columbia University later, in New York City, and indeed Hamilton was in college when the
War broke out. As I remember, Washington took notice of Hamilton during the battles around
New York, and brought him onto his staff. So Hamilton had a very privileged view of
the Revolutionary War. He acted as Washington’s eyes and ears during the War. After the War,
of course, Hamilton would be appointed by Washington as the first Secretary of the Treasury,
and one of the true founders of our constitutional government. Hamilton laid the financial foundations
for the United States during his tenure as Secretary of the Treasury. And of course,
Hamilton would be killed in a duel in 1804 with Vice President of the United States,
Aaron Burr, and we’ll talk more about that in a later lecture. Hamilton should also be
remembered for his writing of the Federalist Papers. There’s actually 3 authors here,
Hamilton; James Madison; and John Jay; although Hamilton wrote the bulk of these papers. They
were designed to secure ratification of the new Constitution, and indeed, they succeeded.
Very high level propaganda, you might say, designed to convince the American people of
the suitability of this new, more powerful, centralized government. Thomas Jefferson – A few words, a Virginia
slave owner, born in 1743, died in 1826, along with John Adams, on the same day. The 3rd
President of the United States, the founder of an alternative political party in the 1790s,
which we will talk about later. A delegate to the Continental Congress, he served as
our representative in France during the early years of the French Revolution. A true republican
in the sense that he distrusted large government. Jefferson is famous for his promotion of the
Empire of Liberty, which he envisioned being populated by small independent farmers of
great virtue since they were autonomous and did not depend upon the capitalists for employment.
Jefferson is one of those figures that we will come back to over the course of these
lectures. He was the first Secretary of State. He died in debt. And his library, which is
probably the largest in the country, became the beginning of our Library of Congress.
Jefferson, like Franklin, a true renaissance figure, endlessly tinkering with his house
at Monticello in Charlottesville, Virginia; founded the University of Virginia; served
2 terms as President; and Jefferson, of course, illustrates that problem at the heart of the
American experience between the proclamation that all men equal on the one hand with the
fact that he was a large-scale slave owner on the other. We’ll talk more about Jefferson
when we talk about Lewis and Clark. The last figures here, I’ll quickly sum
up. James Madison, a Virginia slave owner, a chief
lieutenant of Jefferson. Jefferson often came up with the ideas, which were then put into
practice by Madison. Madison is quite famous as a father of the U.S. Constitution, as he
took detailed notes during the deliberations, and his Virginia Plan was very influential
in creating our first government. Of course, Madison is also one of the authors of the
Federalist Papers, along with Hamilton and Jay. Two more figures I’m just going to briefly
mention – John Marshall – John Marshall is significant
in U.S. history because he genuinely elevated the Supreme Court to a status equal to that
of the legislative and executive branches. His development of judicial review made the
Supreme Court an equal partner in the system of checks and balances. And then finally, Aaron Burr. I’m going
to mention him now because we’re going to talk about him later. Burr is a true aristocrat,
unlike some of these other founders he was born into wealth. His grandfather, of course,
was the famous Puritan divine, Jonathan Edwards, who you’ll read about in American literature.
His father was President of New Jersey College, which of course, would become Princeton. Burr
is about the same age as Hamilton and these two men will clash over the course of their
careers. You get the sense that New York City is not big enough for these two egos and these
two very talented men. Burr, of course, will kill Hamilton in a duel in 1804, and we will
discuss that in detail. So this wraps up our lecture, just trying
to give you an introduction to some of these founding fathers so it would give you a sense
of their significance and the roles they played in the American Revolution. Thank you. .

The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27 – Episode 27: Progressive Era Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse
U.S.
history, and today we’re gonna talk about Progressives. No Stan Progressives.
Yes. You know, like these guys who used to want
to bomb the means of production, but also less radical Progressives.
Mr. Green, Mr. Green. Are we talking about, like, tumblr progressive where it’s half
discussions of misogyny and half high-contrast images of pizza? Because if so, I can get
behind that. Me from the past, your anachronism is showing.
Your Internet was green letters on a black screen.
But no, The Progressive Era was not like tumblr, however I will argue that it did indirectly
make tumblr and therefore JLaw gifsets possible, so that’s something.
So some of the solutions that progressives came up with to deal with issues of inequality
and injustice don’t seem terribly progressive today, and also it kinda overlapped with the
gilded age, and progressive implies, like, progress, presumably progress toward freedom
and justice, which is hard to argue about an era that involved one of the great restrictions
on freedom in American history, prohibition. So maybe we shouldn’t call it the Progressive
Era at all. I g–Stan, whatever, roll the intro.
Intro So, if the Gilded Age was the period when
American industrial capitalism came into its own, and people like Mark Twain began to criticize
its associated problems, then the Progressive era was the age in which people actually tried
to solve those problems through individual and group action.
As the economy changed, Progressives also had to respond to a rapidly changing political
system. The population of the U.S. was growing and
its economic power was becoming ever more concentrated. And sometimes, Progressives
responded to this by opening up political participation and sometimes by trying to restrict
the vote. The thing is, broad participatory democracy
doesn’t always result in effective government–he said, sounding like the Chinese national Communist
Party. And that tension between wanting to have government
for, of, and by the people and wanting to have government that’s, like, good at governing
kind of defined the Progressive era. And also our era.
But progressives were most concerned with the social problems that revolved around industrial
capitalist society. And most of these problems weren’t new by 1900, but some of the responses
were. Companies and, later, corporations had a problem
that had been around at least since the 1880s: they needed to keep costs down and profits
high in a competitive market. And one of the best ways to do this was to keep wages low,
hours long, and conditions appalling: your basic house-elf situation.
Just kidding, house elves didn’t get wages. Also, by the end of the 19th century, people
started to feel like these large, monopolistic industrial combinations, the so-called trusts,
were exerting too much power over people’s lives.
The 1890s saw federal attempts to deal with these trusts, such as the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act, but overall, the Federal Government wasn’t where most progressive changes were made.
For instance, there was muckraking, a form of journalism in which reporters would find
some muck and rake it. Mass circulation magazines realized they could
make money by publishing exposés of industrial and political abuse, so they did.
Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? I bet it involves muck. The rules here are
simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document.
I’m either correct or I get shocked. “Let a man so much as scrape his finger
pushing a truck in the pickle-rooms, and all the joints in his fingers might be eaten by
the acid, one by one. Of the butchers and floormen, the beef-boners and trimmers, and
all those who used knives, you could scarcely find a person who had the use of his thumb;
time and time again the base of it had been slashed, till it was a mere lump of flesh
against which the man pressed the knife to hold it. … They would have no nails – they
had worn them off pulling hides.” Wow. Well now I am hyper-aware of and grateful
for my thumbs. They are just in excellent shape. I am so glad, Stan, that I am not a
beef-boner at one of the meat-packing factories written about in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
No shock for me! Oh Stan, I can only imagine how long and hard
you’ve worked to get the phrase “beef-boner” into this show. And you finally did it. Congratulations.
By the way, just a little bit of trivia: The Jungle was the first book I ever read that
made me vomit. So that’s a review. I don’t know if it’s positive, but there you go.
Anyway, at the time, readers of The Jungle were more outraged by descriptions of rotten
meat than by the treatment of meatpacking workers: The Jungle led to the Pure Food and
Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. That’s pretty cool for Upton Sinclair, although
my books have also led to some federal legislation, such as the HAOPT, which officially declared
Hazel and Augustus the nation’s OTP. So, to be fair, writers had been describing
the harshness of industrial capitalism for decades, so muckraking wasn’t really that
new, but the use of photography for documentation was.
Lewis Hine, for instance, photographed child laborers in factories and mines, bringing
Americans face to face with the more than 2 million children under the age of 15 working
for wages. And Hine’s photos helped bring about laws that limited child labor.
But even more important than the writing and photographs and magazines when it came to
improving conditions for workers was Twitter … what’s that? There was no twitter? Still?
What is this 1812? Alright, so apparently still without Twitter,
workers had to organize into unions to get corporations to reduce hours and raise their
pay. Also some employers started to realize on
their own that one way to mitigate some of the problems of industrialization was to pay
workers better, like in 1914, Henry Ford paid his workers an average of per day, unheard
of at the time. . Whereas today I pay Stan and Danica 3x that
and still they whine. Ford’s reasoning was that better-paid workers
would be better able to afford the Model Ts that they were making. And indeed, Ford’s
annual output rose from 34,000 cars to 730,000 between 1910 and 1916, and the price of a
Model T dropped from 0 to 6. Still, Henry Ford definitely forgot to be
awesome sometimes; he was anti-Semitic, he used spies in his factories, and he named
his child Edsel. Also like most employers at the turn of the
century, he was virulently anti-union. So, while the AFL was organizing the most
privileged industrial workers, another union grew up to advocate for rights for a larger
swath of the workforce, especially the immigrants who dominated unskilled labor: The International
Workers of the World. They were also known as the Wobblies, and
they were founded in 1905 to advocate for “every wage-worker, no matter what his religion,
fatherland or trade,” and not, as the name Wobblies suggests, just those fans of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey.
The Wobblies were radical socialists; ultimately they wanted to see capitalism and the state
disappear in revolution. Now, most progressives didn’t go that far,
but some, following the ideas of Henry George, worried that economic progress could produce
a dangerous unequal distribution of wealth that could only be cured by … taxes.
But, more Progressives were influenced by Simon W. Patten who prophesied that industrialization
would bring about a new civilization where everyone would benefit from the abundance
and all the leisure time that all these new labor-saving devices could bring.
This optimism was partly spurred by the birth of a mass consumption society. I mean, Americans
by 1915 could purchase all kinds of new-fangled devices, like washing machines, or vacuum
cleaners, automobiles, record players. It’s worth underscoring that all this happened
in a couple generations: I mean, in 1850, almost everyone listened to music and washed
their clothes in nearly the same way that people did 10,000 years ago. And then BOOM.
And for many progressives, this consumer culture, to quote our old friend Eric Foner, “became
the foundation for a new understanding of freedom as access to the cornucopia of goods
made available by modern capitalism.” And this idea was encouraged by new advertising
that connected goods with freedom, using “liberty” as a brand name or affixing the Statue of
Liberty to a product. By the way, Crash Course is made exclusively in the United States of
America, the greatest nation on earth ever. (Libertage.)
That’s a lie, of course, but you’re allowed to lie in advertising.
But in spite of this optimism, most progressives were concerned that industrial capitalism,
with its exploitation of labor and concentration of wealth, was limiting, rather than increasing
freedom, but depending on how you defined “freedom,” of course.
Industrialization created what they referred to as “the labor problem” as mechanization
diminished opportunities for skilled workers and the supervised routine of the factory
floor destroyed autonomy. The scientific workplace management advocated
by efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor required rigid rules and supervision in order to heighten
worker productivity. So if you’ve ever had a job with a defined
number of bathroom breaks, that’s why. Also “Taylorism” found its way into classrooms;
and anyone who’s had to sit in rows for 45 minute periods punctuated by factory-style
bells knows that this atmosphere is not particularly conducive to a sense of freedom.
Now this is a little bit confusing because while responding to worker exploitation was
part of the Progressive movement, so was Taylorism itself because it was an application of research,
observation, and expertise in response to the vexing problem of how to increase productivity.
And this use of scientific experts is another hallmark of the Progressive era, one that
usually found its expression in politics. American Progressives, like their counterparts
in the Green Sections of Not-America, sought government solutions to social problems.
Germany, which is somewhere over here, pioneered “social legislation” with its minimum
wage, unemployment insurance and old age pension laws, but the idea that government action
could address the problems and insecurities that characterized the modern industrial world,
also became prominent in the United States. And the notion that an activist government
could enhance rather than threaten people’s freedom was something new in America.
Now, Progressives pushing for social legislation tended to have more success at the state and
local level, especially in cities, which established public control over gas and water and raised
taxes to pay for transportation and public schools.
Whereas federally the biggest success was, like, Prohibition, which, you know, not that
successful. But anyway, if all that local collectivist
investment sounds like Socialism, it kind of is.
I mean, by 1912 the Socialist Party had 150,000 members and had elected scores of local officials
like Milwaukee mayor Emil Seidel. Some urban progressives even pushed to get
rid of traditional democratic forms altogether. A number of cities were run by commissions
of experts or city managers, who would be chosen on the basis of some demonstrated expertise
or credential rather than their ability to hand out turkeys at Christmas or find jobs
for your nephew’s sister’s cousin. Progressive editor Walter Lippman argued for
applying modern scientific expertise to solve social problems in his 1914 book Drift and
Mastery, writing that scientifically trained experts “could be trusted more fully than
ordinary citizens to solve America’s deep social problems.”
This tension between government by experts and increased popular democratic participation
is one of the major contradictions of the Progressive era. The 17th amendment allowed
for senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by state legislatures,
and many states adopted primaries to nominate candidates, again taking power away from political
parties and putting it in the hands of voters. And some states, particularly western ones
like California adopted aspects of even more direct democracy, the initiative, which allowed
voters to put issues on the ballot, and the referendum, which allows them to vote on laws
directly. And lest you think that more democracy is
always good, I present you with California. But many Progressives wanted actual policy
made by experts who knew what was best for the people, not the people themselves.
And despite primaries in direct elections of senators it’s hard to argue that the
Progressive Era was a good moment for democratic participation, since many Progressives were
only in favor of voting insofar as it was done by white, middle class, Protestant voters.
Alright. Let’s Go to the Thought Bubble. Progressives limited immigrants’ participation
in the political process through literacy tests and laws requiring people to register
to vote. Voter registration was supposedly intended to limit fraud and the power of political
machines. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar, but it actually just suppressed voting generally.
Voting gradually declined from 80% of male Americans voting in the 1890s to the point
where today only about 50% of eligible Americans vote in presidential elections.
But an even bigger blow to democracy during the Progressive era came with the Jim Crow
laws passed by legislatures in southern states, which legally segregated the South. First,
there was the deliberate disenfranchisement of African Americans. The 15th amendment made
it illegal to deny the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude
but said nothing about the ability to read, so many Southern states instituted literacy
requirements. Other states added poll taxes, requiring people to pay to vote, which effectively
disenfranchised large numbers of African American people, who were disproportionately poor.
The Supreme Court didn’t help: In 1896, it made one of its most famous bad decisions,
Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that segregation in public accommodations, in Homer Plessy’s
case a railroad car, did not violate the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection clause.
As long as black railroad cars were equal to white ones, it was A-OK to have duplicate
sets of everything. Now, creating two sets of equal quality of everything would get really
expensive, so Southern states didn’t actually do it. Black schools, public restrooms, public
transportation opportunities–the list goes on and on–would definitely be separate, and
definitely not equal. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Now, of course, as
we’ve seen Progressive ideas inspired a variety of responses, both for Taylorism and
against it, both for government by experts and for direct democracy.
Similarly, in the Progressive era, just as the Jim Crow laws were being passed, there
were many attempts to improve the lives of African Americans.
The towering figure in this movement to “uplift” black southerners was Booker T. Washington,
a former slave who became the head of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, a center for
vocational education. And Washington urged southern black people
to emphasize skills that could make them successful in the contemporary economy.
The idea was that they would earn the respect of white people by demonstrating their usefulness
and everyone would come to respect each other through the recognition of mutual dependence
while continuing to live in separate social spheres.
But Washington’s accommodationist stance was not shared by all African Americans. WEB
DuBois advocated for full civil and political rights for black people and helped to found
the NAACP, which urged African Americans to fight for
their rights through “persistent, manly agitation.”
So I wanted to talk about the Progressive Era today not only because it shows up on
a lot of tests, but because Progressives tried to tackle many of the issues that we face
today, particularly concerning immigration and economic justice, and they used some of
the same methods that we use today: organization, journalistic exposure, and political activism.
Now, we may use tumblr or tea party forums, but the same concerns motivate us to work
together. And just as today, many of their efforts were not successful because of the
inherent difficulty in trying to mobilize very different interests in a pluralistic
nation. In some ways their platforms would have been
better suited to an America that was less diverse and complex. But it was that very
diversity and complexity that gave rise and still gives rise to the urge toward progress
in the first place. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week.
Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith
Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history
teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café.
Every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. You can suggest captions in comments
where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of
historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course. If you like
it, and if you’re watching the credits you probably do, make sure you’re subscribed.
And as we say in my hometown don’t forget to be awesome…That was more dramatic than
it sounded. Progressive Era – .