Hey guys. First time poster and history geek here.
I was asked to write an essay on any president for my college American History class. I chose one of my favorite presidents -- Thomas Jefferson -- and centered it on the various contradictions that continue to mar his legacy to this day: http://socyberty.com/history/six-shocking-facts-about-thomas-jefferson/ (http://socyberty.com/history/six-shocking-facts-about-thomas-jefferson/)
I wanted to see what you guys think. Were you already aware of these facts before reading the article? Do you think anything should be changed/added? Do you find these to be truly shocking facts about Thomas Jefferson?
I still have a couple of days before this is due.
Thanks.
I think you have a lot of learning to do. You can't compare today's screwed up country to that of Jefferson's and claim he was wrong, wee live in a terribly PC Nation today, Jefferson did what was best for the country at the time.
I'd suggest you learn more about the time in history and understand the context of which Jefferson was able to make change.
To focus on ones personal life does nothing but disservice to the good he brought to the country.
If you're looking for perfection, you are in for a huge let down.
This is the sort of snarky crap that passes for research these days?
Google Hillsdale College, enroll in their Constitution and History courses, and learn something worthwhile.
Quote from: TboneAgain on April 02, 2013, 09:07:47 PM
This is the sort of snarky crap that passes for research these days?
Google Hillsdale College, enroll in their Constitution and History courses, and learn something worthwhile.
Amen to that if you want rock-solid, no-BS history. The department head has been on C-Span and PBS many times. It's a four-star school and takes no federal funding.
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention... the courses at Hillsdale online are FREE. Don't think they're poor quality because of that -- the lectures are the exact same lectures delivered to the paying students. It's just that the folks who run Hillsdale think certain basic things -- like an understanding of how this country was founded and why -- ought to be in the public domain.
Quote from: TboneAgain on April 02, 2013, 09:07:47 PM
This is the sort of snarky crap that passes for research these days?
Google Hillsdale College, enroll in their Constitution and History courses, and learn something worthwhile.
Trashing the Founders is probably a guaranteed A.
My suggestion. Trash this POS and write about something you know positively nothing about. Oh wait- you just did.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg197%2F7672%2Fps0299wsarcasticcaret.jpg&hash=f15de5181aa01286dba36da816cea4e91a6930e0)
Quote from: Shooterman on April 03, 2013, 06:10:42 AM
My suggestion. Trash this POS and write about something you know positively nothing about. Oh wait- you just did.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg197%2F7672%2Fps0299wsarcasticcaret.jpg&hash=f15de5181aa01286dba36da816cea4e91a6930e0)
Now compare this to that of the people that vetted the child potus.
Yeah, we know more about Jefferson's personal life than that of a sitting president.
And yet we still have kids too stupid to recognize how they are being played when it comes to our history, they see it as a Jerry Springer episode.
If any of these kids had parents concerned about their kids education, they'd yank them out of these so called "institutions of higher learning" and get them into a trade school, there is no demand for the indoctrinated.
"It has been said that the greatest volume of sheer brainpower in one place occured when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." --John Kennedy
I think you people are being too hard on the kid. After all, he could have mentioned Sally Hennings and Maria Cosway.
You're a history geek?
Your research for a college level essay is comprised of several paragraphs of material that has no context whatsoever?
If this passes for college essay material, things are worse than I thought. Either you or your parents are getting ripped off. I'd drop out and go to HVAC school; at least you will be able to get a job when you're done.
That's just embarrassing. I wouldn't have been able to base an essay on that, when I was in 8th grade.
You have provided a shocking fact about the sad state of our educational system. Shameful. :blushing: :sad:
Quote from: Charliemyboy on April 03, 2013, 06:47:23 AM
"It has been said that the greatest volume of sheer brainpower in one place occured when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." --John Kennedy
I think you people are being too hard on the kid. After all, he could have mentioned Sally Hennings and Maria Cosway.
He did. :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: kramarat on April 03, 2013, 06:48:28 AM
You're a history geek?
Your research for a college level essay is comprised of several paragraphs of material that has no context whatsoever?
If this passes for college essay material, things are worse than I thought. Either you or your parents are getting ripped off. I'd drop out and go to HVAC school; at least you will be able to get a job when you're done.
That's just embarrassing. I wouldn't have been able to base an essay on that, when I was in 8th grade.
You have provided a shocking fact about the sad state of our educational system. Shameful. :blushing: :sad:
Honestly, I think it was just a ploy to get hits for his blog.
I want to see his sources. Let him come back and defend his integrity. Too often the universities encourage this baseless drivel and gross scandel meant to shake our (youth's) faith in the government. Follow your heart (and your *p*eers) is the mantra of the college professor.
Clearly it was meant to envoke a reaction.
Quote from: pisskop on April 03, 2013, 07:15:18 AM
I want to see his sources. Let him come back and defend his integrity. Too often the universities encourage this baseless drivel and gross scandel meant to shake our (youth's) faith in the government. Follow your heart (and your eers) is the mantra of the college professor.
Clearly it was meant to envoke a reaction.
Kids do that!
Jefferson was right and that is our problem today. He couldn't get elected dog catcher today in our PC world but I like him. He said what needed to be done and he did it. It is a totally foreign concept today and by the way Hillsdale is a great school.
Quote from: pisskop on April 03, 2013, 07:15:18 AM
I want to see his sources. Let him come back and defend his integrity. Too often the universities encourage this baseless drivel and gross scandel meant to shake our (youth's) faith in the government. Follow your heart (and your *p*eers) is the mantra of the college professor.
Clearly it was meant to envoke a reaction.
His "sources" consist of a single book. I've never written a paper that only had one source [Even in undergrad].
It should also be noted it's April and this article was written on February 18th, 2013. I seriously doubt a paper of this length was given a month and a half time before you turn in.
Blueridge troll alert. Or Bluenose, or Bluegill, or Blueballs, or whatever that was.
This is like the guys who think it's oh-so-intelligent to trash Christianity based on the Old Testament, Crusades, and KNights Templar........while making excuses for the current day muslim violence, planned genocide against Israel, and current genocide among themselves.
I guess this is what's become of the 15-25 demographic, nothing but snarky-smarmy-bitchy nonsense. And it's their truth, never to be altered or relented.
Like many of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson knew slavery was wrong - he just didn't know what to do about it. He once described slavery as: "Like having a wolf by the ears, you can't hold on forever and you can't let it go". And look at the blood spilled to finally settle the question. As for his beliefs about the power of the government; The Lousiana Purchase was simply too good a deal to let go. Doubling the size of the country AND gaining the mouth of the Mississippi! And if I remember correctly Congress wasn't in session when Napoleon made the offer.
Quote from: mdgiles on April 03, 2013, 11:46:17 AM
Like many of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson knew slavery was wrong - he just didn't know what to do about it. He once described slavery as: "Like having a wolf by the ears, you can't hold on forever and you can't let it go". And look at the blood spilled to finally settle the question. As for his beliefs about the power of the government; The Lousiana Purchase was simply too good a deal to let go. Doubling the size of the country AND gaining the mouth of the Mississippi! And if I remember correctly Congress wasn't in session when Napoleon made the offer.
TJ was a brilliant man. I truly enjoyed my tour of Monticello. He was certainly ahead of his time. Our lib friends, on the hand, feel his thoughts are out moded.
:popcorn:
The story of Jefferson & Monticello, and Washington & Mt. Vernon, is pretty neat.
They apparently were competetive on some level with the development of their little worlds, which are really quite close to each other.
Monticello was centered around a really cool house full of inventions, gadgets, nifty little spaces, etc.....while Mt. Vernon was centered around grounds, landscape, and gardens.
But both just amazing, and a tribute to the guys who created America. True giants in their vocations, avocations, and even hobbies !
I find it rather ironic that with our forefathers, liberals are quick to point out who they associated with and their lifestyle, but try to bring up Obama's friends and associates and suddenly those things are not relevant. So, are friends and associates meaningful or not?
Quote from: doublejm1 on April 02, 2013, 08:28:10 PM
Hey guys. First time poster and history geek here.
I was asked to write an essay on any president for my college American History class. I chose one of my favorite presidents -- Thomas Jefferson -- and centered it on the various contradictions that continue to mar his legacy to this day: http://socyberty.com/history/six-shocking-facts-about-thomas-jefferson/ (http://socyberty.com/history/six-shocking-facts-about-thomas-jefferson/)
I wanted to see what you guys think. Were you already aware of these facts before reading the article? Do you think anything should be changed/added? Do you find these to be truly shocking facts about Thomas Jefferson?
I still have a couple of days before this is due.
Thanks.
"Considering I love to learn new things and always dreamed of being a writer, I can certainly draw parallels between Jefferson and myself."
I'd drop that line. It is not about Jefferson, it is about you, and could be viewed as self-serving.
Otherwise, the piece demonstrates that the are no Absolutes. Even for the likes of Jefferson. As much as there will be some that will rise to the contrary, all ethics and morals ar situational.
Quote from: mdgiles on April 03, 2013, 11:46:17 AM
Like many of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson knew slavery was wrong - he just didn't know what to do about it. He once described slavery as: "Like having a wolf by the ears, you can't hold on forever and you can't let it go". And look at the blood spilled to finally settle the question. As for his beliefs about the power of the government; The Lousiana Purchase was simply too good a deal to let go. Doubling the size of the country AND gaining the mouth of the Mississippi! And if I remember correctly Congress wasn't in session when Napoleon made the offer.
I suspected you were older than that tin-type photo you stuck up... :tounge: :tounge: :tounge:
Let's see, that puts you back to 1804 or thereabouts, yes?
Oh, and her name was Hemings. Sarah "Sally" Hemings. [/nitpick]
Quote from: Byteryder on April 03, 2013, 03:52:22 PM
"Considering I love to learn new things and always dreamed of being a writer, I can certainly draw parallels between Jefferson and myself."
I'd drop that line. It is not about Jefferson, it is about you, and could be viewed as self-serving.
Otherwise, the piece demonstrates that the are no Absolutes. Even for the likes of Jefferson. As much as there will be some that will rise to the contrary, all ethics and morals ar situational.
At the risk of being self-serving, a few visual aids for this lad's epic display of third-rate research.....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages59.fotki.com%2Fv112%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F9678622%2Fhomelandsecurity300x203pxvi-vi.jpg&hash=df4c147c10ed023af9966ac53447f7c397db8812)
At the present, Janet Napolitano is stonewalling Congress over the feds buying up all the available ammunition in America. At the present, attorney general Eric Holder remains the only AG to ever be indicted for contempt of Congress --- and yet still serves in his job. Now the presence of armed and unarmed surveillance drones is being stepped up, in a move that concerns even the normally-placid ACLU.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages46.fotki.com%2Fv374%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F9678622%2Fintolerant_govtvi-vi.png&hash=a20d0e95a16aa740e1197cdcafe205c6f1fc0bbf)
He can cut White House tours for civic-minded schoolkids but can't resist renting the entire four-star Taj Mahal Hilton for his entourage, or spend millions on vacations which taxpayers must pay for (as far as security and housing of security are concerned). Thus far he has taken one vacation per month. Does this mean Obama works harder than Jefferson and needs more time away, or he's less competent than Jefferson and needs the room to hide?
I'll let that slave-schtupping Virginian get the last word....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages56.fotki.com%2Fv127%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F9678622%2Fparasitesjefferson300x256pxvi-vi.jpg&hash=6a02983a0014e352205ba7636fcced86ea466a72)
haha, the comparison of one's self to Thomas Jefferson always points to a legit character.....
and I woulda given Prince Fielder a run for his money if I hadn't quit the game in little league.....
Thanks for the comments, even though some were rather harsh. :blush:
My goal was not to write a "bash Jefferson" article. If you sense that was my aim in writing this article, I do apologize. But notice I credit Jefferson at different points in the article (shrewd politician, etc.) Like every other politician, Jefferson had flaws and strengths.
Quote from: doublejm1 on August 08, 2013, 03:31:43 PM
Thanks for the comments, even though some were rather harsh. :blush:
My goal was not to write a "bash Jefferson" article. If you sense that was my aim in writing this article, I do apologize. But notice I credit Jefferson at different points in the article (shrewd politician, etc.) Like every other politician, Jefferson had flaws and strengths.
Thou wouldst do better in studying George Mason.
Quote from: doublejm1 on August 08, 2013, 03:31:43 PM
Thanks for the comments, even though some were rather harsh. :blush:
My goal was not to write a "bash Jefferson" article. If you sense that was my aim in writing this article, I do apologize. But notice I credit Jefferson at different points in the article (shrewd politician, etc.) Like every other politician, Jefferson had flaws and strengths.
#1 - Delivering the State of the Union address in person had nothign to do with Jefferson being "shy". Most original states of the union were delivered in writing. It was not until the progressivist Woodrow Wilson that State of the Union addresses really began to be habitually delivered in person to a Joint Session of Congress.
#2 - While acquiring territory, i.e. the Louisiana Purchase, may not be an authority given to the President directly, it is surely an understood power of Congress, and an effective choice of the Executive (particularly if it involves avoiding near-future war with other nations). More territory does not necessarily mean bigger government.
Surely the Founders did not view that the Country must remain solely as the 13 original colonies, and 13 huddled stars in a lonely field of blue on the flag.
#3 - You cannot address Jefferson's "indulging" whithout addressing the fact that Jefferson was among a few of the founders who did not get the distinct difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The American Revolution did not "indulge" the whim of populist demand, particularly when it meant giving up the terms of a Civil Society. whereas the French Revolution did so, and this resulted in the hangings and decapitations, and the violent pendulum swings from one faction to another. Jefferson's inability to make this distinction involving the importance of a foundation in Civil Society almost resulted in Jefferson being thrown in the Bastille, or getting him killed.
Jefferson's mistake, and even blindness about the French Revolution is seen today in this administration's blindness about the Middle East and supporting the "Arab Spring" and more recent populist problems in Egypt. Both in Revolutionary France, and today's Middle East, without first a foundation in a Civil Society, then the result of "democracy" can only be a populist elected tyranny and dictatorship, which is what Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were in Egypt, and what the French Revolution was in France.
#4 - Your claim that Jefferson did not practice what he preached when it came to race and the question of slavery. This statement comes from your obvious youth and naivete. You recognize that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but then you proceed to ignore it, just as many contemporary progressives.
The Declaration declares all mean to be created equal. It does not give the government, nor the Constitution itself the authority to dictate that equality, to change the terms of society. Had the Constitution done so, those Founders would have created the very sort of government which they fought against Britain and King George to reject, in which government can dictate the terms of Society.
Any government that can unilaterally dictate the terms of society, or engage in "Social Engineering", can also unilaterally dictate the enslavement of mankind.
To no surprise, the very involvement of the government in dictating "rights" after the Civil War, has led to the government dictating that it has de facto ownership of each and every American citizen, via ObamaCare. And this is something that is grossly unconstitutional, and deliberately nowhere in the federal government's legitimate authority.
Also Jefferson didn't simply just back the extension of slavery into Missouri, not any more so than by the 3/5ths clause was only viewing blacks as 3/5th of a person! The Missouri Compromise was in order to find a compromise in agreement for the nation to not imbalance it in the legislature, and thereby promote rejection of the further increase of the country's size. Jefferson was not promoting slavery by allowing it into Missouri.
5 - Jefferson did not simply just hate political parties, but believed that those parties should not replace the interest of the nation, and the principles of the Constitution, with their own ideology.
Quote from: Trip on August 08, 2013, 04:17:48 PM
#1 - Delivering the State of the Union address in person had nothign to do with Jefferson being "shy". Most original states of the union were delivered in writing. It was not until the progressivist Woodrow Wilson that State of the Union addresses really began to be habitually delivered in person to a Joint Session of Congress.
#2 - While acquiring territory, i.e. the Louisiana Purchase, may not be an authority given to the President directly, it is surely an understood power of Congress, and an effective choice of the Executive (particularly if it involves avoiding near-future war with other nations). More territory does not necessarily mean bigger government.
#3 - You cannot address Jefferson's "indulging" whithout addressing the fact that Jefferson was among a few of the founders who did not get the distinct difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The American Revolution did not "indulge" the whim of populist demand, particularly when it meant giving up the terms of a Civil Society. whereas the French Revolution did so, and this resulted in the hangings and decapitations, and the violent pendulum swings from one faction to another. Jefferson's inability to make this distinction involving the importance of a foundation in Civil Society almost resulted in Jefferson being thrown in the Bastille, or getting him killed.
Jefferson's mistake, and even blindness about the French Revolution is seen today in this administration's blindness about the Middle East and supporting the "Arab Spring" and more recent populist problems in Egypt. Both in Revolutionary France, and today's Middle East, without first a foundation in a Civil Society, then the result of "democracy" can only be a populist elected tyranny and dictatorship, which is what Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were in Egypt, and what the French Revolution was in France.
#4 - Your claim that Jefferson did not practice what he preached when it came to race and the question of slavery. This statement comes from your obvious youth and naivete. You recognize that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but then you proceed to ignore it, just as many contemporary progressives.
The Declaration declares all mean to be created equal. It does not give the government, nor the Constitution itself the authority to dictate that equality, to change the terms of society. Had the Constitution done so, those Founders would have created the very sort of government which they fought against Britain and King George to reject, in which government can dictate the terms of Society.
Any government that can unilaterally dictate the terms of society, or engage in "Social Engineering", can also unilaterally dictate the enslavement of mankind.
To no surprise, the very involvement of the government in dictating "rights" after the Civil War, has led to the government dictating that it has de facto ownership of each and every American citizen, via ObamaCare. And this is something that is grossly unconstitutional, and deliberately nowhere in the federal government's legitimate authority.
Also Jefferson didn't simply just back the extension of slavery into Missouri, not any more so than by the 3/5ths clause was only viewing blacks as 3/5th of a person! The Missouri Compromise was in order to find a compromise in agreement for the nation to not imbalance it in the legislature, and thereby promote rejection of the further increase of the country's size. Jefferson was not promoting slavery by allowing it into Missouri.
5 - Jefferson did not simply just hate political parties, but believed that those parties should not replace the interest of the nation, and the principles of the Constitution, with their own ideology.
Another good post.
Just to add... A common misconception, is that slavery was
invented in the US.
This is simply not so. America was founded during a time that slavery was common, particularly in Africa.
I think that many people think that the fact that Jefferson held slaves, meant that he woke up every morning and whipped them. I think not.
America was the first nation on the planet to abolish slavery. Period.
We owe nothing to anyone.
Quote from: Shooterman on August 08, 2013, 04:04:53 PM
Thou wouldst do better in studying George Mason.
LMAO! Oh dear God, I had nearly forgotten about our heated debate at the other place. What is that guy's name you used to have in your signature? R. Carter Pittman?
(* No, I really do NOT want to re-engage that argument, but I am still aghast how Pittman can make the claims he did and still be considered some sort of scholar)
This is one reason of many I regret that site being not only shut down, but still there and only locked down in so far as us being unable to access those threads.
Quote from: kramarat on August 08, 2013, 04:40:32 PM
Another good post.
Just to add... A common misconception, is that slavery was invented in the US.
This is simply not so. America was founded during a time that slavery was common, particularly in Africa.
I think that many people think that the fact that Jefferson held slaves, meant that he woke up every morning and whipped them. I think not.
America was the first nation on the planet to abolish slavery. Period.
We owe nothing to anyone.
Yeah, good point. I actually meant to include that, but lately I've been being bashed for the length of my posts so I didn't go into that aspect.
(I'm trying to find a plugin for EzPortal for one to do posts with pictures and talk bubbles, like comic books, to limit my post size)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femo%2Flaughing%2Fcrying.gif&hash=7dafaa2c50091bfe3081204643cd24aa5cc44bfc)
Quote from: Trip on August 08, 2013, 04:45:32 PM
Yeah, good point. I actually meant to include that, but lately I've been being bashed for the length of my posts so I didn't go into that aspect.
(I'm trying to find a plugin for EzPortal for one to do posts with pictures and talk bubbles, like comic books, to limit my post size)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femo%2Flaughing%2Fcrying.gif&hash=7dafaa2c50091bfe3081204643cd24aa5cc44bfc)
I think your posts are just fine. I don't like comic books, nor the distraction of pictures. The facts work...at least for me.
I've got one issue, that isn't even a big deal. Supper's up, so I'll delve into it later. :wink:
Quote from: Trip on August 08, 2013, 04:41:18 PM
LMAO! Oh dear God, I had nearly forgotten about our heated debate at the other place. What is that guy's name you used to have in your signature? R. Carter Pittman?
(* No, I really do NOT want to re-engage that argument, but I am still aghast how Pittman can make the claims he did and still be considered some sort of scholar)
This is one reason of many I regret that site being not only shut down, but still there and only locked down in so far as us being unable to access those threads.
I will take the word of a long dead constitutional lawyer, Trip, over yours most any day. That is just me, though.
Quote from: Shooterman on August 08, 2013, 08:23:49 PM
I will take the word of a long dead constitutional lawyer, Trip, over yours most any day. That is just me, though.
That long dead constitutional lawyer, that could not even recognize that Jefferson's rendition of Mason in the DOI was not declaring that all mean are created equal in fact, in actual outcome?
This is what you said elsewhere about Pittman, an actual quote "... believes the Declaration dictates that all men must be of actual equality in ability and intellect,"
Curiously, the Declaration of Independence says nothing of the sort, and Pittman should have known this himself, if he were any sort of scholar.
In response to my question, again elsewhere, of "how, you believe that Jefferson perverted Mason's views with what was written in the DOI" this is what you answered:
- Simply. Mason's idea was that all men are born equal under the law. That is as far as the case carries us. We are not created equal with ability, drive, determination, or even culturally. ( no where was that more evident than the issue of slavery. ) The DOI implies, and has come to mean that everyone is created equally- simply not so.
This is just your own problematic understanding of what the DOI actually indicates, and apparently Pittman's as well.
The contested passages of the DOI indicates:
- " ... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
That "all men are created equal" in no way indicates that all persons are born with the same "ability, drive, determination" or even skill!
That comma following "equal" actually defines that equality to being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". By this fact, Jefferson is saying the exact same thing that Mason was, except doing so in a far more streamlined and elegant fashion, without the verbosity of Mason.
NOTHING in that passage has to do with outcome, or de facto equality of ability! And it takes a seriously troubled skill with the English language to even try to indicate that it does so!
But let us look again at who R. Carter Pittman actually was. He was a leftist Social-Engineering Progressive:
- Robert Carter Pittman was appointed judge of the Police Court, and then served as Massachusetts state Representative in 1858, and state senator from 1864-65 and 1868-1869, the last year of which he was President of the Senate. In 1869 he was appointed judge to the Massachusetts Superior Court
While Pittman's term as Senator does not not indicate a party affiliation, Pittman's ideology shows him to be a devout Social Engineering Progressive, even presaging FDR's New Deal. Pittman was active in the temperance movement, and in 1873 he became president of the National Temperance Convention, and authored a book, "Alcohol and the State: A Discussion of the Problem of Law", a 400 page tome which even by today's standards would be overkill, arguing for the federal government to prohibit the consumption any alcohol, by federal dictate.
Pittman may as well have been an alcoholic himself, because his referenced writing about the DOI, claiming that Jefferson declares all people to be equal in so far as ability and intellect, is one of the most intellectually vapid and factually flawed things I've ever read in my whole life.
NOWHERE does the DOI indicate that everyone is equal in so far as actual fact, but rather only equal in being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", and that IS the truth!
Not only is Pittman not any sort of "constitutional scholar", he is on the
leading edge of the Corruption of the Constitution, demanding that the federal government has the authority to dictate the terms of society... in each and every State, something I've shown the federal government has NO constitutional authority to do, being prohibited from applying legislation to ANY State!
Wrong Pittman, Trip. So sorry to burst your bubble. The Pittman I am referring to was from Georgia.
ROBERT CARTER PITTMAN was born in Calhoun, Gordon County, Georgia, October 8, 1898, one of twelve children of Robert McGrady and Lelia Thomas Pittman. He grew up in the Villanow, Walker County, Georgia area. He received his preparatory education from Reinhardt College, Emory University, and the University of Georgia. After receiving a LL.B. from Columbia University in 1927, Mr. Pittman began practicing law in Dalton, Whitfield County, Georgia, establishing a firm in which he was active until his death March 15, 1972.
Mr. Pittman was a member of the Board of Bar Examiners of the State of Georgia, the American and Georgia Bar Associations, the American Judicature Society, and the National Federation of Insurance Counsel. He was the author of many articles in the field of constitutional law and history, published in the American Bar Association Journal, the Virginia Law Review, the Georgia Bar Journal, the Alabama Lawyer, the Florida Law Journal, and other publications.
In the early 1940's, he began collecting originals and copies of letters, manuscripts and holographs by, or relative to, George Mason of Virginia, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776 (three weeks before the Declaration of Independence), and the Virginia Constitution of the same year—from which our U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights was derived. Mr. Pittman was considered by many to be an authority on the Bill of Rights and constitutional law pertaining to it.
He was the first president elected by the Tufted Textile Manufacturers' Association, now known as the Carpet and Rug Institute, served two one-year terms, and was instrumental in the organization, growth and development of the North Georgia Electric Membership Corporation. Mr. Pittman served on the boards of several local businesses and financial institutions.
A veteran of World War I, he was a former vice chairman of the Georgia Democratic Committee and was a member of the Georgia Commission of Constitutional Government.
He was a member of the Dalton Civitan Club, Dalton Elks Lodge and Dalton Masonic Lodge. In 1949 he was named to the University of Georgia Gridiron Society. In 1967 he was elected to the (Wall) of Fame of the Demosthenian Literary Society at the University of Georgia. He was a trustee of Camp Juliet Lowe for Girl Scouts at Cloudland Canyon.
Mr. Pittman married Charlotte Pruden, a native Daltonian, daughter of Lottie A. and Frank S. Pruden, January 24, 1935. Their children were Carol P. Tipton, born April 9, 1938, R. Carter Pittman, Jr., born January 8, 1940 and Jane P. Lieberman, born July 10, 1944, deceased March 17, 1977.
And he's still a Democrat..
and still one who not grasp the simple phrasing that shows that the Declaration of Independence undeniably does not indicate that the all persons are in any way equal in outcome, which is irrational.
This is the claim that the Left makes, insisting the the DOI and Constitution therefore support equality of outcome.
Evidently you've gotten it in your head it must be true and accurate, and then have foolishly sought reasons to how this corruption might have occurred, condemning the Declaration of Independence, and then found that condemnation support in the form of one Robert Carter Pittman.
Instead, what you should have done, is recognized that the corruption comes from those current Progressives themselves, and not actually the DOI.
I could write a rather lengthy thesis on why Pittman's presentation, below is so extremely flawed.
Equality vs Liberty: The Eternal Conflict (http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/misc/Equality_v_Liberty.html)
However, just scrolling down to the section below the words
"The Declaration is Not the Law" even only the first paragraph is a thesis unto itself:
- The Declaration of Independence never became living law in America, and no provision of the Federal Constitution or Bill of Rights can be traced to it and, as this essay will demonstrate, its influence on state constitutions and bills of rights has been insignificant. It was written to serve the temporary purposes of a sanguinary conflict. It was and perhaps will ever be history's most effective piece of propaganda, but it neither grants nor protects human rights.
Contrary to Pittman's indication, the DOI is every bit as much the living law in America, the Organic Law, as is the Constitution itself.
Furthermore, the entirety of the Constitution is structured on the recognitions in the DOI, not to mention the BIll of Rights itself.
Pittman's problem, as yours, is he fails to realize that the true issue here is one that "equality" does not in any way involve equality in outcome, recognition and reward.
While Pittman accurately criticizes the Civil Rights movement, he should have focused his criticism on the movement's corrupt demand for equal outcome, while allowing the federal government to engage in the policing of rights, which is was deliberately prohibited, and while denying individuals their very own rights, such as came about with forced busing.
No, instead of doing what is logically evident from the facts before him, Pittman instead engages in an utterly fallacious condemnation of the DOI and Jefferson, thereby forcing his thesis to be devoid of any true academic scholarship, as well as denying himself ability to reference actual historical and constitutional fact by his contrived argument.
Quote from: Trip on August 08, 2013, 09:57:25 PM
And he's still a Democrat..
and still one who not grasp the simple phrasing that shows that the Declaration of Independence undeniably does not indicate that the all persons are in any way equal in outcome, which is irrational.
This is the claim that the Left makes, insisting the the DOI and Constitution therefore support equality of outcome.
Evidently you've gotten it in your head it must be true and accurate, and then have foolishly sought reasons to how this corruption might have occurred, condemning the Declaration of Independence, and then found that condemnation support in the form of one Robert Carter Pittman.
Instead, what you should have done, is recognized that the corruption comes from those current Progressives themselves, and not actually the DOI.
No where did R Carter Pittman advocate that men, beyond the protection of the law, were equal in outcome. If that is what you got from his thesis, then per chance that is what you wished to get from his thesis. He advocated that equality and freedom are the antithesis of each other, which is basically what most of the Founders believed.
Yes, he was a Democrat, an honest one, of the old school that still existed in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. I was wondering exactly how long before you made that straw man argument.
In reality, the Bill of Rights, not ratified until 1791, was predicated upon the Viirginia Declaration of Rights, written and published in June of 1776, and along with the charges from Judge William Henry Drayton of South Carolina, formed the basis for much of the DOI. He is quite correct, as well, and you are quite incorrect, that though some of the principles found within the DOI were later codified into law, the DOI itself was not.
I would suggest to the rest of the fora, yourself included, though I hold out little promise you will do so, the following read;
The Declaration of Independence-Its Antecedents and Authors
http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/documents/Declaration_of_Independence.html (http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/documents/Declaration_of_Independence.html)
I am woefully inadequate to defend whom I consider, ( admittedly, this is my opinion only, and expect no one else to necessarily agree ) one of the best jurors of his age, against what seems at times, another Robby from Down Under.
One can't help but notice almost from the first, this, upon going to the website of R Carter Pittman's writings;
QuoteHonorable Carter Pittman is one of the learned men of the legal profession. If you do not like him, remember he is an opponent worthy of your best steel.
His philosophy like that of George Mason is "Rule by consent of the governed."
T. Whitfield Davidson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DALLAS, TEXAS
May 15, 1962
Once again, Trip, I leave you to your self reverence and glorification. My humble endeavor here was not so directed at your great intellect, but at the edification of the lessor men and ladies here.
Have a good day, and a great suppa as another Democrat, Ol' Jack Brooks, used to say. ( make of that what you will )
Quote from: Shooterman on August 09, 2013, 05:37:54 AM
No where did R Carter Pittman advocate that men, beyond the protection of the law, were equal in outcome. If that is what you got from his thesis, then per chance that is what you wished to get from his thesis. He advocated that equality and freedom are the antithesis of each other, which is basically what most of the Founders believed.
Yes, he was a Democrat, an honest one, of the old school that still existed in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. I was wondering exactly how long before you made that straw man argument.
If that is what you got from my damn post, then you need to go and read it again, particularly since this isn't the first time we've had this discussion about Pittman.
Nowhere do I indicate that Pittman said that people were equal in outcome; what I indicated, and Pittman indicated, is that he felt that is what Jefferson indicated in the Declaration of Independence.
Overall, as I pointed out, the DOI's reference to "equality" (created equal) is NOT any sort of reference to equal outcome, but rather equality under the law (rights), just the exact same thing as Mason indicated!
NOWHERE does Jefferson, or the DOI indicate any sort of equality of outcome, which would indeed be in conflict with freedom, but fortunately the whole issue is a gross failing of Pittman's scholarship!
Quote from: Shooterman on August 09, 2013, 06:11:53 AM
In reality, the Bill of Rights, not ratified until 1791, was predicated upon the Viirginia Declaration of Rights, written and published in June of 1776, and along with the charges from Judge William Henry Drayton of South Carolina, formed the basis for much of the DOI. He is quite correct, as well, and you are quite incorrect, that though some of the principles found within the DOI were later codified into law, the DOI itself was not.
Pittman didn't just say the DOI is not law (which might have been acceptable on its own, but he actually said, as I previously quoted,
"The Declaration of Independence never became living law in America, and no provision of the Federal Constitution or Bill of Rights can be traced to it..."This is grossly, thoroughly and demonstrably wrong on so many levels.
The DOI is every bit as much the "Organic Law" and founding principle of these United States, and causal in the Bill of Rights, and the very structure of the Constitution itself. In point of fact, the DOI is listed in the United States Code as the "Organic Law" of the United States, along with the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution itself! For those unfamiliar, the "organic law" of a country is that which is recognized to be the founding principle of that country.
However Pittman is maintaining just the opposite!
As I've pointed out previously on this forum, the Founders of this country repeatedly indicated the importance of the DOI this nation's founding principle, by dating documents and speeches to the Declaration of Independence itself (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-constitution/a-right-to-secede/msg139931/#msg139931)! Even Lincoln's famous "Four Score and Seven", from the Gettysburg Address, is a reference back to that Declaration of Independence!
Pittman is not just "a little wrong" here, he's grossly wrong! And wrong even on sometime as simple, and clearly evident, that the DOI was providing some guarantee of equal outcome!
It should be obvious, even to the linguistically challenged, that "created equal" has nothing whatsoever to do with being "maintained equal", or even a statement of equality of abilities, even if they ignore the entire clause following the comma, which clarifies that equality as being applicable to "rights" under the law.
Once we're created, all bets (and equality) are off, and therein lies the Freedom.
This is not just "Trip" indicating this; this is not just my own unsupported opinion. This is America's founders, and Presidents predominantly indicating this over the first half of America's history!
What you and Pittman are indicating is nothing short of a gross corruption of this country, the Constitution, and our history.
Nice try, Trip. However, much to your dismay, I'm sure, the DOI, is not Law. The fact some principles as laid out within the DOI became law, does not make the DOI binding on any living soul as law.
Quote
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The DOI is not considered to be the Law of The Land. Surely, if it had been considered so by the Founders, is it not reasonable to believe they would have stated so with the Constitution itself?
I see no mention of the DOI as being considered the Law of The Land. Wishing it so does not make it so.
I am well aware you do not like Pittman, as your opinion is much greater than his. I am also aware Morris Dees and the SPLC do not like him, ( or his memory ) as well.
Quote from: Shooterman on August 09, 2013, 08:52:30 AM
Nice try, Trip. However, much to your dismay, I'm sure, the DOI, is not Law. The fact some principles as laid out within the DOI became law, does not make the DOI binding on any living soul as law.
The DOI is not considered to be the Law of The Land. Surely, if it had been considered so by the Founders, is it not reasonable to believe they would have stated so with the Constitution itself?
I see no mention of the DOI as being considered the Law of The Land. Wishing it so does not make it so.
Guess what, the U.S. Constitution is not statory law either. None of it is able to be applied as statute.
In point of fact, the DOI and Constitution are on excatly the same footing - the Organic law of this country.
In point of fact, the principle and philosophy of the DOI is not just incorporated into the Constitution, but the very cornerstone of the Constitution itself. It's why there are checks and balances. It is why the States are sovereign. It is why there's a Bill of Rights, with that Bill itself even being unnecessary for those rights to be observed, given the limits on government.
As such, in recognizing the Constitution to be the Law of the land, one is also recognizing the DOI to be the law of the land.
There's actually one way the DOI has a foot up on the Constitution. While the Constitution may one day be thoroughly abandoned, and some other form of government put in its place, the principles of the Declaration of Independence will still endure, as they are not merely the form of government, but its very principle.
To no surprise, the DOI itself clearly states the purpose of every form of government.
"Nice try", ya'self.
And "Welcome to America".
I truly believe, Trip, you would argue with George Mason himself if he was re-incarnated.
Quote from: Shooterman on August 09, 2013, 09:28:23 AM
I truly believe, Trip, you would argue with George Mason himself if he was re-incarnated.
And I truly believe, Shooter, you would embrace the Devil himself if he gave you a simple enough explanation for what you see before you, provided it didn't involve you doing any work, or assuming any responsibility.
I'm not saying you're evil, nor am I saying you're stupid. I am saying you're intellectually lazy and you've been truly negligent in understanding the terms and history of this, your country, over your entire life.
I don't hesitate at all in saying, at this point, you should truly be ashamed. I myself have felt that shame, so you certainly are not above it.
But you're not alone in that, and therein lies our problem.
You're not beyond salvation, and neither are we as a whole, but it will take work.
What you and I argue about here is not some minor thing; it is the singular foundational principle of this country, and no other country in the history of mankind.
It should be observed, in your position on this issue, that you actually stand shoulder to shoulder with Marxist "Libs" arguing the same corruption you do, in order to overturn this country and our freedoms.
Yet I've told them the same thing that I tell you now. Nowhere does the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution itself, involve any sort of reference to equality of ability and skill, much less equality of outcome,
You don't need to just read the limited text of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to know this. You can turn to the 85 lengthy Federalist papers as well. But don't stop there! It's not as if the ideas of this country's principles were plucked out of thin air. There are numerous political philosophers that preceded the application of ink to these Parchments, going back to Ancient Rome. Yet no other country established its very existence upon these principles.
While you reference George Mason, he actually does not stand with you either.
None of this nation's founders, not even ONCE, ever made the claim that Jefferson corrupted Mason's words, and in fact they all wrote at length to the contrary. I'm quite certain they were paying far better attention then, than you are now.
And it's not as if the evidence that Pittman is wrong involves some great, convoluted proof either. There's a reason that credible constitutional authorities don't reference Pittman at all.
It's time for you to wake up. You're too damn weathered to be this damn ignorant. Neither the Devil nor Robert Carter Pittman bear any salvation for you.
But then, again, you're not alone in this problematic condition, so please don't take my comments personally.
We all fall far short of the glory of Trip. Hallelujah!
Quote from: Shooterman on August 09, 2013, 11:22:15 AM
We all fall far short of the glory of Trip. Hallelujah!
You're the one flying your ego ahead of fact.
But then you pulled this same crap the last time we had this discussion too. However you are a great foil to demonstrate why we have such a problem unifying to restore this country.
Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 11:51:29 AM
You're the one flying your ego ahead of fact.
But then you pulled this same crap the last time we had this discussion too. However you are a great foil to demonstrate why we have such a problem unifying to restore this country.
Have a good day, Trip.
What is the bizarre fascination liberals have with lists anyway?
Everything is a Cosmo article these days: "Eighteen Tricks To Please Your Lover," "Twelve Amazing Gwennyth Hairdo Tips," "Forty Seven Ways The Founding Fathers Were All Communists...."
Why can't airheads figure out just ONE way to shut the Hell up?
Quote from: doublejm1 on April 02, 2013, 08:28:10 PM
Hey guys. First time poster and history geek here.
I was asked to write an essay on any president for my college American History class. I chose one of my favorite presidents -- Thomas Jefferson -- and centered it on the various contradictions that continue to mar his legacy to this day: http://socyberty.com/history/six-shocking-facts-about-thomas-jefferson/ (http://socyberty.com/history/six-shocking-facts-about-thomas-jefferson/)
I wanted to see what you guys think. Were you already aware of these facts before reading the article? Do you think anything should be changed/added? Do you find these to be truly shocking facts about Thomas Jefferson?
I still have a couple of days before this is due.
Thanks.
To start with Jefferson was not the sole author of the Declaration of Independence contrary to popular myth he was just one of a committee which hammered that document out.
Quote from: kopema on September 17, 2013, 02:41:35 PM
What is the bizarre fascination liberals have with lists anyway?
Everything is a Cosmo article these days: "Eighteen Tricks To Please Your Lover," "Twelve Amazing Gwennyth Hairdo Tips," "Forty Seven Ways The Founding Fathers Were All Communists...."
Why can't airheads figure out just ONE way to shut the Hell up?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
If Oprah didn't say it, they didn't learn it.
Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 09:09:19 AM
Guess what, the U.S. Constitution is not statory law either. None of it is able to be applied as statute.
In point of fact, the DOI and Constitution are on excatly the same footing - the Organic law of this country.
In point of fact, the principle and philosophy of the DOI is not just incorporated into the Constitution, but the very cornerstone of the Constitution itself. It's why there are checks and balances. It is why the States are sovereign. It is why there's a Bill of Rights, with that Bill itself even being unnecessary for those rights to be observed, given the limits on government.
As such, in recognizing the Constitution to be the Law of the land, one is also recognizing the DOI to be the law of the land.
There's actually one way the DOI has a foot up on the Constitution. While the Constitution may one day be thoroughly abandoned, and some other form of government put in its place, the principles of the Declaration of Independence will still endure, as they are not merely the form of government, but its very principle.
To no surprise, the DOI itself clearly states the purpose of every form of government.
"Nice try", ya'self.
And "Welcome to America".
Wrong again Trip.
The Constitution is in fact a statutory document. It's the highest statutory document in the United States.
Unlike the Declaration of Independence which was and is in fact nothing more than a letter to King George of England informing him of the Colonies intent and reasons for, separation from England as a nation state.
In fact Article six, clause two, of the Constitution itself.
States quite clearly that is is the supreme law of the United States, and thus it is a statutory document.
QuoteThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
.
So lets see, who's right about whether the Constitution is law or not within the United States.
The Constitution itself when it states that it is the Supreme law in the United States?
Or
Trip when he says it is not?
Hmmm, I think I'll believe what the Constitution has to say about the Constitution rather than what trip has to say about it.
First of all, don't speak ill of the dead. It's an unfair argument, though in this instance you still fell well short of your adversary. If you are to carry out a single person spar against the character of the late honorable Thomas Jefferson, at the least you owe him disclaimers of opinion, and verification of facts must be exhaustive. It is your duty as an author where no defense of character can be expected of your target to take it upon yourself to conduct all due defense as your own. This entails an honest separation of bias directly opposing your preconceived objective (which caused you allowance to pick the subject from the outset).
You clearly delineate 6 major "shocking" attacks on the character of the honorable Thomas Jefferson, offering only the the weakest of feigned remonstration. I will attribute this to weakness of mind or torpidity providing you benefit of the doubt as to the dereliction of your fiduciary responsibilities.
Quote from: daidalos on September 17, 2013, 08:25:35 PMUnlike the Declaration of Independence which was and is in fact nothing more than a letter to King George of England informing him of the Colonies intent and reasons for, separation from England as a nation state.
Greetings, daidalos.
The Declaration of Independence is more than a letter, notice, or statement of intent. It's actually a binding document, adopted by the Second Continental Congress in 1776.
But as to Jefferson, he was aces. He never really had a vision for specialization or for laissez-faire economics, believing that "when millions of free people at once turn their thoughts from trade, and the means of acquiring wealth, to agriculture and frugality, it must cause a most sensible alteration in the state," but as a public leader, he was as liberating as they come.
Though only the third president, he actually reduced the size of government. During his administration, taxes were repealed, the bureaucracy was cut, and even the military was decreased in size (and we were still able to defeat the Barbary Pirates). Washington and Adams were Federalists and undertook to expand the government, however slightly by today's measures, but by the end of Jefferson's presidency, the only exposure most Americans had to the federal government was mail delivery. (Or maybe Washington was unaffiliated, I'm not sure, but certainly he allied more with the Federalists than he did with the Republicans.)
For all his flaws, Jefferson appreciated the sovereignty and happiness of his peers, which made for superb leadership. If I may say, he was, perhaps, our best president.
Brilliant man. Flawed man. Very different time.
That's a lot of big words there gentlemen. I will try to keep up, but please be mindful I dropped out in the tenth grade.
Thomas Jefferson was the man dog. He came down there with his pen and he whooped the King of England's ass! He and the whole crew at Independence Hall, fighting for a better tomorrow, against the great tyrants of the Old World. What? You can bemoan the fact that he killed Indians, yeah because the British loved them didn't they? What? You can chide the fact that he owned slaves, yeah because King George and his crew they all hated slavery! What?
The bottom line is that if it weren't for the Jeffersons, if it weren't for the Washingtons, if it weren't for the Adamses or the Hamiltonians there would've been no America. And with no America there would've been no movement towards the ending of slavery in our Constitution, a fact you can bank on Jack. So the next time you are hanging with a black friend of yours enjoying a nice Steveweiser, you might want to remember that men like Jefferson paved the way to a better tomorrow!
And that's the bottom line, cos Stone Cold said so!