Started by AlfredDrake, December 12, 2014, 12:32:04 PM
Quote from: daidalos on December 12, 2014, 09:51:58 PMJefferson like many of the founders felt that individual liberty and freedom, is a good thing, and something which if not guarded against, government will always seek to curtail and suppress.Jefferson believed, (rightly so) that the more individual liberty, freedom and personal responsibility a society has, the less government it needs.And know what, as Obama and his fellow dims exemplify, as other historical examples show, he and his fellow founders were right If given the chance government, even a "democratic one" (hate it when our Republic is called a democracy pet peeve rant over) such as ours, will always seek to accumulate power to itself, even if it has to do so, at the expense of the rights of it's own citizen's in order to do so. Interestingly enough, many history profs, and most public schools won't tell their student's that there is a difference between the two. Because they want to hide the fact that when discussing Jefferson and the ideology he and his fellows ascribed too. That the "kind" of Democrat Jefferson was, is NOT the same political animal as the Democrats we see today. They both might be called "Democrats" but that is where the similarity just about ends.What the "Democrats" of Jefferson's day were.Politically, and ideologically, were more akin to our Tea Party really, or maybe the more conservative members of the GOP than the "Democrat's" of today.The Dims of today are ideologically and politically more akin to the Third Reich of WWII or the Soviet model post WWII. More so than a "Democrat" of Jefferson's era.
Quote from: zewazir on December 14, 2014, 08:16:35 AMOf note is that Thomas Jefferson was, essentially, an anti-federalist. He was of the opinion that the Constitution was not needed; that a few relatively minor modifications to the Articles of Confederation would have been adequate to address the problems the fledgeling nation was facing, the worst of which was getting the individual states to cooperate more with each other in the face of mutual distrust. Jefferson did not take part in the Constitutional Convention, being in France at the time, though he did correspond with several of the delegates to the Convention and is noted to have had some significant influence. When appointed to be Secretary of State under Washington, Jefferson conflicted frequently with Hamilton, who was then Secretary of Treasury as to the role and authority of the newly founded federal government. In fact, Jefferson was a primary influence in the formation of the Democratic-Republican party in 1792, which was formed to oppose the federalization taking place under Hamilton's guidance in the Treasury Department. Hamilton, together with a number of influential bankers and businessmen, formed the Federalist Party in 1794.The Federalist Party won the first round on points when Adams defeated Jefferson in the election of 1796. Under the original wording of the Constitution, this meant Jefferson, the second-place candidate, became Vice to a presidency he did not support. The major political difference between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans came to a head when Adams invoked the Alien and Sedition Acts, a move which seemingly justified Jefferson's stance on the dangers of too much federal authority. Jefferson defeated Adams in the election of 1800. Jefferson was unsuccessful in convincing congress to repeal most of the authority-growing legislation enacted under Washington (as influenced by Hamilton and his banker buddies) and Adams. If fact, Jefferson is criticized by a number of historians as somewhat of a hypocrite, with Jefferson's use of federal authority in commerce by signing the Embargo Act of 1807.But in the end, there is little doubt that Jefferson was a major proponent in keeping the majority of governmental authority within the states themselves, and holding the federal government to minimal roles of national defense, interstate transportation, international relations, and, when needed, general mediator between the states.
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 14, 2014, 08:35:26 AMWe talk about the Founding Fathers in hushed tones and the constitution as a nearly sacred document. Were the Federalists Founding Fathers and were the Articles of Confederation more sacred? Was the constitution a redo to make the system work or the result of a conspiracy?
Quote from: zewazir on December 14, 2014, 10:02:28 AMDunno about you, but I talk about the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers, both Federalist and Anti-Federalists, in a clear, firm, and, if necessary, loud manner. The Constitution was written in response to the fact that the nation under the Articles of Confederation was rapidly falling apart. There were those who desired to patch up the deficiencies in the Articles, but the faction which believed a new start was preferable won the prevailing opinion. "Conspiracy"? Since the Constitutional Convention was proposed above board, and all the state legislatures were invited to appoint and send delegates to represent the interests of each respective state, then it must have been the most open conspiracy in history.There are those, like Thomas Jefferson, who were of the opinion that the Constitution ended up granting too much authority to a single central government. Other prevailing opinions worried that rights and liberties were not adequately protected, and the ratification of several of the states, including Virginia, the home of Jefferson, were contingent on the passage of a bill of rights.Today, there are also some who hold to the opinion that the Constitution allowed too much federal authority at the cost of states rights and individual liberty. Others opine that such would not be the case if the limitations of federal authority were actually being practiced. Personally, I fall more into the second group, though I also believe that had I been an adult at the time of the Constitutional Convention, I likely would have been an anti-federalist.
Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2014, 09:27:54 AMWho's this "WE" shit? By that statement, you assume responsibility for other posters, always speak for yourself "Only" when posting. And I suggest you study the Federalist Papers first.
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 14, 2014, 01:37:24 PMI sometimes post what I think are thought provoking questions just to see who's thinking and who's not. I also like to go back to first principles. You can trace the same line of thinking to Hobbes vs Locke. Cool stuff, thanks again.
Quote from: zewazir on December 15, 2014, 04:10:33 PMYou want what I, at least, consider a thought provoking question?Had federalism NOT prevailed and grown stronger over the first 160 years of U.S. history, resulting in the United States of America that existed ca. 1941, would we have been strong enough as a single nation to defeat the Axis powers in WWII?
Quote from: daidalos on December 16, 2014, 03:20:40 AMNo, it's not whispers or "hushed tones", it's just that those of us who are not liberal socialists, talk about the Founders with respect, when we speak of them.As for the Constitution being "nearly a sacred document".The Constitution is NOT "like" a sacred document. It IS THE sacred document, within the legal judicial system as it is the highest law of the nation.
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 17, 2014, 10:01:40 AMSorry, I had just read the following from Tomas Jefferson (a founding father who I admire very much):" Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment." Letter to H. Tompkinson 1816.And,"I am certainly no advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be born with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. And as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manner and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat fitted to him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Letter to H. Tompkinson 1816Could he be calling it a living document?