Epic Rap Battles of Historyyyyyyy!

Would that Washington had also been a Senator and Congressman and done the same, so that they'd have traditional term limits too.

Yeah, I know the presidential term limit is law now. But that's only because somebody actually went and didn't retire after two of them. Arguably the best one to not do so, but...

You know, I dont like this battle much because it feel like rip off of George washinton vs Wallace: the American spent his first verse playing in how awsome they are and in short saying they are the biggest pimp of all and them their oponent use Slavery as diss againt them, the diferent here is that jefferson just admit and try to cast a half apologie and his oponent just denied(while admiting he was a genius but still a damn racist)

In way it wasnt even a battle

Edison vs. Tesla wasn't much of a battle either, but people liked that.

That was battle because both trate insult and ego back and fort, is just that Edison recient personality as jerkass toward Nikola tesla make him usympathic and his diss wasnt enought(like less said clint vs bruce lee) the same happen with Frank sinatra vs Mercury.

there are few moments where the writers clearly bend to one side, Hitler vs Vader 3 is most blatant

Ah well he was still rather good with his whole leaving after a bit, Washington I mean. I suppose that's why he is remembered fondly.

That and he set precedence as for what a President can or cannot do. There was an attempted rebellion over a whiskey tax (irony, but it was Hamilton's idea for such a thing so that the country could pay off the national debt and get stable) that, at this early in the country's history, could've turned into something even worse. Washington's solution was to round up some troops, with him leading them, and ride over to the rebels. By the time Washington got there, the rebellion had fallen apart out of fear.

There was also that "American Revolution" thing he was involved in.

Although he wasn't exactly that great of a general, more a good figurehead for soldiers to respect/fear.

He was an overrated general, but he did admittedly use retreating as a good tactic. Then again, with his army being kinda shite until they hired that one Prussian guy whose name escape me to train them, he had to retreat a lot to keep the army from crumbling.

Plus some of his wins were made out of dumb luck. The attack on the Hessians was successful, yes, but Washington's plan almost failed when a spy got word of it and tried telling the Hessian commander. Fortunately for Washington, the Hessian commander told the guy to tell him later and then forgot to ask about it.

The French were the ones who helped the colonies win, and they did a damn good job of it (excluding how it ended up resulting in the French Revolution and a bunch of issues for the young US in trying to keep out of the war between France and Britain), but Washington admittedly did a good enough job to keep the army from falling apart long enough to receive foreign aid.

Trenton wasn't a win of dumb luck. It was desperate, but well executed plan than almost failed because of bad luck. There's a difference. By saying it was a dumb luck win you might as well say Normandy was won by luck because Hitler was sleeping and didn't order the tank divisions on standby into the defense or Midway was won by dumb luck because the third wave followed the Arashi to the carrier force.

Note that Washington proceeded to win another battle a week later, it's not like he was bumbling his way into victory.

Baron von Steuben made the Continental Army into an effective fighting force, something Washington had been urging all along, and Washington put that training to good use in the very next battle when the Continental held their own after nearly being routed thanks to another general's bungling.

Saying Washington was just a figurehead makes no sense. Washington was the one with military experience and new better than to rely on fickle militia like so many other Founding Fathers wanted. Washington knew it was better to keep the army intact rather than go up against larger, better trained, better equipped British forces. So long as the army survived, the nation had hope, destroy the army, America was as good as gone. When he did choose to commence battles, his soldiers took heart in his personal bravery as he rallied men into the fight. Washington paid for spies and had to coordinate with thirteen lukewarm supporting states and an ineffectual Congress than almost never had money so he could buy food, weapons, or even pay his soldiers. Heck, at various times, Congress schemed to get rid of him (Looking at you, Sam Adams) and replace him with men history has shown to be colossal failures.

When the war was almost over, the army officers, tired of Congress mistreating them, wanted to march on the government and force them out of power if they didn't get the seven years of pay they were owed. Washington crashed their meeting and said and did things there that made them all start crying and killed the coup in its cradle. He was way more than just a figurehead.

Fair enough. Washington admittedly had a lot going for him to show that he he could effectively back up his legacy as being a damn awesome man. Jefferson, on the other hand, doesn't.

Oh yeah you guys also have that military thing. And yes I know the Revolution was important. As far as setting a precedent I mean our first prime minister set a precedent but he was also Prime Minister for a really long time so he mostly got a reputation for getting drunk (there was also some stuff about being he got there by talking and there was no revolution which were also factors). But I was curious why you revere Washington so much, so it's like well our guy was kind of a horrible person he launched a genocide and starvation, than I was like but Washington was a slave-owner and so were a number of Founding Fathers so obviously there is factors beyond is a terrible person of remembering fondly (there is also the fact Washington was from longer ago than John A.)

Washington was a slave owner, but I think that's more of a values dissonance thing. People harp on Jefferson for being a slave owner because he was the guy to write "all men are created equal" and yet backtrack from it constantly. Washington, to my knowledge (I could be wrong, if I am somebody please tell me), never said anything for or against slavery in public, and admittedly he did something Jefferson didn't do and freed all of his slaves in his will (Jefferson sold some of his to pay off his debts). Washington also was a strong leader during a time when the country needed one to get things started, and he worked hard to make sure things worked out, so he has credentials to him as a politician. I know barely anything about Canadian history, unfortunately, so I can't really tell you about your first Prime Minister.

Okay maybe did bad things is a better term to use than is a horrible person.

I guess Washington owning slaves isn't really seen as bad when almost everyone back then owned slaves. Admittedly, I always looked up to Adams and Franklin a lot more than Washington because they were some of the first abolitionists.

Quoting myself, "I have no idea who Frederick Douglass is, but he just kicked Thomas Jefferson's ass verbal and beautifully. This was one of the most one-sided battles I've ever heard, and the best this season so far. It's awesome, quite frankly. I loved it."

Washington was famously silent on slavery and that will forever remain a black mark on his name. In private, he said he didn't like keeping slaves and oddly enough, knew they were a net loss on his income. But he was also a miserly bastard who was among the richest men in America and still needed slaves to maintain his way of life. Perhaps he felt guilty enough about it that when he stipulated that his slaves were to be freed after his wife died he also said that his money was to be used to pay for the retirement of his old and sickly slaves and that the younger ones were also to be taught to read and write and taught a useful trade so that they could live on their own when they came of age.

If any defense of his conduct can be made it could be said that slavery was a touchy issue, one we all know would ultimately come around to nearly destroy the nation. He didn't want to risk dividing the country while it was still young and getting its bearings, when the possibility of rebellion would almost certainly mean to dissolution of the Unites States.

Well Washington at least had enough of a conscience to pull a move like that off. Jefferson mostly sold his slaves to pay off his debts upon his death.

Washington had the advantage of not being in debt when he died. A lot of the Southern, plantation owning Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe) had a remarkable tendency to perpetually put themselves in debt with their luxurious lifestyles. Washington was a notable exception, but you look at his political-economic views and it's not surprising that he was way better at managing his finances. If the rest of the Southern Founding Fathers were doing one thing, you could always count on Washington to be doing the opposite.

The US is incredibly fortunate that Washington was more powerful than the above three mentioned combined because if they had been the ones dictating infant America's early financial policies they probably would have wrecked the country.

I feel like I took the history rambling too far off topic for this thread. I apologize.

On the battle itself, I appreciate the message, but wasn't overly impressed with either rapper. And honestly, I found it too one-sided to have fun with.

Yeah, even I thought it was too one-sided and preachy. If Jefferson didn't apologize in his second part, it would have been more enjoyable.

Also, hi there :P

edited 1st Jun '16 2:01:33 PM by Lampodigenio

I think I have to concur. Exposing old hypocrisies and celebrating less-talked about heroes of civil rights is a worthy cause, but making that the whole point of the video made this rather less effective as a rap battle.

So yeah, this one actually kinda sucked.

Douglass's performance actually isn't that good. He chokes on a couple of his own words, his flow is very erratic, and he doesn't have any lines that have any sort of punch. Meanwhile, Jefferson's performance is lackluster compared to Peter's savagery as Washington, and that's not even regarding the apology-fueled second verse, which, while having solid intentions, still completely deflates him.

If I had to pick a winner, it'd be Douglass, but only because the episode is essentially telling me that he's the winner. And I'm not a fan of that.

It's irritating for me because back in season 1, when there was the Bieber vs Beethoven battle, they managed to make Justin's lines in such a way it was still clear they were satirizing him, but his lines were still aggressive and even kind of cool, in a weird way. If Bieber after Ludwig's lines suddenly had apologized for insulting music in general, it would have looked kinda lame and the second bashing of Beethoven would have been resulted unnecessary, making him a stuffed shirt who's making fun of a teenage pop-star.

edited 1st Jun '16 4:33:44 PM by Lampodigenio

Hell, they were even doing shit like this with Mercury vs. Sinatra.

The problem with that battle is that if you actually set it up so that Jefferson can win the Unfortunate Implications become staggering.