It is quite easy to see why Grant is "agitated". He and all of us SHOULD be agitated over NOT being properly informed about our OWN history. Over and over again he clearly states about how he has been robbed. When one is robbed the normal response is at least agitation.and to have an edge to one's speech ought to be the norm. I am astonished by Troy012 below that he so clearly misunderstands "the point". The point is we've been robbed and it is important that we don't, in turn, rob others.
I would like to inform certain parties that Dr. Grant is also a Pastor in Franklin Tennessee :) He is a Bible believing Christian and this is a Christian approach to history
My God, the guy has an incredible edge to his tone! Under normal circumstances (read: if a NORMAL historian had given this lecture), the existence of 16 "presidents of the United States" would certainly be a point of interest. The fact is that if you take any, say, 5-year period, of American history, there's a TON of fascinating information that we don't know.
So what's Grant's point? Why is he so agitated? I don't know, but it's clear he has some agenda, and it's clearly a religious one.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Grant is an idiot. He is misinforming all of you. The members who led the "CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATION" were titled,"President of the United States Congress Assembled" or "President of Congress". They were not "CHIEF EXECUTIVES". Their function was to work under the auspices of and in service of the Congress.
GRANT gets an "F" in American history.
He also gets an "F" in comprehension. The First Amendment demands a separation of church and state which he ignores in his prosyletic rants.
You are missing the point. Grant knows the difference between the president under the US Constitution vs the Articles of Confederation. The point is that we have a vast ignorance of the era of the Articles and the great leaders of that time (Comprehension...F). Now a comp. question for you - perhaps you could explain why "state churches" under the US Bill of Rights were in existence well after the ratification of the First Amendment. E.g., Mass. had a state church (Congregational) until 1833.
Dr. Grant doesn't ignore the issue of the "wall of separation between church and state." You just haven't heard him speak on it, apparently.
I'm sure you're aware that the first amendment never speaks of a "separation of church and state," but that that phrase is taken out of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association.
The purpose of the "[no] establishment of religion" was to ensure that the government did not establish any particular religion as the national religion.
Not sure what you are talking about. I have no youtube page. I am a member and just made a comment. As for Dr. Grant: humble? fine. I still do not understand his point. No founding father ever spoke about a President under the Articles. It was a committee of states.
Hey I've been a student of Dr. Grant's for 3 years and I hav ehad the privilage of taking his American History Class and what he is saying is that Modern historians have completely
Modern historians have completly ignored the 16 Presidents who presided over the Articles of Confederation and thus over the United States. It is true that the 1st President under our current Constitution was Washington. Grant is not suggesting that we disregard Washington, his point should be well taken nevertheless, that modern historians choose for us and future generations what is "important" and what is not and that should disturb you.
he never said he made a discovery that no one else had made. He said he did not know their was an established president before George washington. he is admitting he was ignorant to the facts....he is being humble in admitting he was ignorant. thirdloft, you have made a youtube page only to comment on this video...thats weird.
I do not understand his point. If you read the Articles of Confederation you see that there was a "committee of states," etc... These "presidential administrations" were nothing like the Presidents under the constitution. Does he think he has made a discovery that no one else made?
actually, they were very similar up until Lincoln and the beginning of the centralizing legacy. Washington himself actually called Henry Laurens (the 3rd president) "the father of our country." Is this a "discovery" or just useless trivia of American history?
It is quite easy to see why Grant is "agitated". He and all of us SHOULD be agitated over NOT being properly informed about our OWN history. Over and over again he clearly states about how he has been robbed. When one is robbed the normal response is at least agitation.and to have an edge to one's speech ought to be the norm. I am astonished by Troy012 below that he so clearly misunderstands "the point". The point is we've been robbed and it is important that we don't, in turn, rob others.
vagabondrecon 8 months ago
I would like to inform certain parties that Dr. Grant is also a Pastor in Franklin Tennessee :) He is a Bible believing Christian and this is a Christian approach to history
Author4Christ 8 months ago
I've been studying under him and listening to his lectures on dvd for a year now. He's my hero :)
Author4Christ 1 year ago
WELL, BYGOD!
jehovahuponyou 1 year ago
My God, the guy has an incredible edge to his tone! Under normal circumstances (read: if a NORMAL historian had given this lecture), the existence of 16 "presidents of the United States" would certainly be a point of interest. The fact is that if you take any, say, 5-year period, of American history, there's a TON of fascinating information that we don't know.
So what's Grant's point? Why is he so agitated? I don't know, but it's clear he has some agenda, and it's clearly a religious one.
TroyOi 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Grant is an idiot. He is misinforming all of you. The members who led the "CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATION" were titled,"President of the United States Congress Assembled" or "President of Congress". They were not "CHIEF EXECUTIVES". Their function was to work under the auspices of and in service of the Congress.
GRANT gets an "F" in American history.
He also gets an "F" in comprehension. The First Amendment demands a separation of church and state which he ignores in his prosyletic rants.
ckguyfromsi 3 years ago
You are missing the point. Grant knows the difference between the president under the US Constitution vs the Articles of Confederation. The point is that we have a vast ignorance of the era of the Articles and the great leaders of that time (Comprehension...F). Now a comp. question for you - perhaps you could explain why "state churches" under the US Bill of Rights were in existence well after the ratification of the First Amendment. E.g., Mass. had a state church (Congregational) until 1833.
wordmp3 3 years ago
Dr. Grant doesn't ignore the issue of the "wall of separation between church and state." You just haven't heard him speak on it, apparently.
I'm sure you're aware that the first amendment never speaks of a "separation of church and state," but that that phrase is taken out of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association.
The purpose of the "[no] establishment of religion" was to ensure that the government did not establish any particular religion as the national religion.
monologtube 3 years ago
monkeys have balls to
isubscribe754 4 years ago
Not sure what you are talking about. I have no youtube page. I am a member and just made a comment. As for Dr. Grant: humble? fine. I still do not understand his point. No founding father ever spoke about a President under the Articles. It was a committee of states.
thirdloft 4 years ago
Hey I've been a student of Dr. Grant's for 3 years and I hav ehad the privilage of taking his American History Class and what he is saying is that Modern historians have completely
squirrelkillr 4 years ago
@squirrelkillr
Me too!! at Franklin Classical School!!
AutumnThorn 1 year ago
Modern historians have completly ignored the 16 Presidents who presided over the Articles of Confederation and thus over the United States. It is true that the 1st President under our current Constitution was Washington. Grant is not suggesting that we disregard Washington, his point should be well taken nevertheless, that modern historians choose for us and future generations what is "important" and what is not and that should disturb you.
JD SMITH
squirrelkillr 4 years ago
he never said he made a discovery that no one else had made. He said he did not know their was an established president before George washington. he is admitting he was ignorant to the facts....he is being humble in admitting he was ignorant. thirdloft, you have made a youtube page only to comment on this video...thats weird.
reformedcalvinist216 4 years ago
I do not understand his point. If you read the Articles of Confederation you see that there was a "committee of states," etc... These "presidential administrations" were nothing like the Presidents under the constitution. Does he think he has made a discovery that no one else made?
thirdloft 4 years ago
actually, they were very similar up until Lincoln and the beginning of the centralizing legacy. Washington himself actually called Henry Laurens (the 3rd president) "the father of our country." Is this a "discovery" or just useless trivia of American history?
adriansrfr 3 years ago
You Rock Dr. Grant. Here is a shout out from Franklin Classical School
NarrowGateStudios 4 years ago 2
@NarrowGateStudios
GO KNIGHTS!!!!!
AutumnThorn 1 year ago