miker wrote:
> So wouldn't Adams have been 7th VP? After all, Wa****ngton himself
> congratulated Hanson on being the first President.
Now you are getting really technical. :-)
George Wa****ngton was officially our first President, John Adams was our
first vice-president and second President. Jefferson was the 2nd VP and
third President.
> Both good comments. I honestly didn't know it was done that way
originally.
I had basically forgotten about it until watching the HBO series, "John
Adams".
Sadly, this show does more to teach history of the start of the nation
than any history class that I took. At my school, you either went and
learned for yourself or you did not learn in almost any class.
I had completely forgotten that John Adams successfully defended the
British soldiers from the Boston Massacre in a Massachusetts court.
Anyway, it shows George Wa****ngton beating Adams by a lot of electoral
votes, but Adams has more than everyone besides Wa****ngton combined.
When he runs against Jefferson, he beats him by 3 votes and gets
hammered the second time around.
> But perhaps the two-parties-and-two-parties-only system wasn't as
entrenched
> then? Back to the drawing board.
>
> miker
Again, the show goes into the start of the two-party system quite a bit,
it started almost immediately, and HBO does not skimp on historians for
reference.
It also shows how we would almost certainly never have achieved
independence without both French military aid and Dutch money loans,
both of which happened but were not mentioned by any of my highly
overpaid history teachers.
If it didn't happen in Texas, they did not care to discuss it. I
probably know every last detail about the battle at the Alamo. We spent
whole semesters on that one. ;-)
Pat
|
