Thomas
Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and
never stopped.
At 5,
began studying under his cousin's tutor.
At 9,
studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14,
studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16,
entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19,
studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23,
started his own law practice.
At 25,
was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31,
wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America ? And
retired from his law practice.
At 32,
was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33,
wrote the Declaration of Independence .
At 33,
took three years to revise Virginia 's legal code and wrote a Public Education
bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36,
was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick
Henry.
At 40,
served in Congress for two years.
At 41,
was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with
European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46,
served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53,
served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical
Society.
At 55,
drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican
Party.
At 57,
was elected the third president of the United States .
At 60,
obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61,
was elected to a second term as President.
At 65,
retired to Monticello .
At 80,
helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81,
almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its
first president.
At 83,
died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence
along with John Adams.
Thomas
Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at
government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the
nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today.
Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the
future:
John F.
Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in
the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly
of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the
exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
"When
we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as
corrupt as Europe ."
-- Thomas
Jefferson
"The
democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to
work and give to those who would not."
--
Thomas Jefferson
"It is
incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which
if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
--
Thomas Jefferson
"I
predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from
wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of
them."
-- Thomas
Jefferson
"My
reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much
government."
-- Thomas
Jefferson
"No
free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas
Jefferson
"The
strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as
a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government."
--
Thomas Jefferson
"The
tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots
and tyrants."
-- Thomas
Jefferson
"To
compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he
disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
--
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas
Jefferson said in 1802:
"I
believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than
standing armies.
If the
American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,
first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow
up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their
children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered."
I wish
we could get this out to everyone!
I'm
doing my part. Please do yours.
|
Thank you for posting this one Martin...
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson, like most of the founding fathers were true patriots who understood liberty and freedom over government "protection" from cradle to grave with entitlements. He also would own several modern sporting rifles with high cap magazines and be training every weekend with local militias to take back D.C. from the SCUM (socialists, communists, utopian, marxists). He certainly wouldn't associate with the Democrats and it is highly unlikely he would understand the Republicans. He would either be a libertarian or a Tea Party organizer.
ReplyDelete" He also would own several modern sporting rifles with high cap magazines and be training every weekend with local militias to take back D.C. from the SCUM (socialists, communists, utopian, marxists)."
DeleteThis is the shit that scares me. Be real for a second gotta, not a single one of us here have a clue how Jefferson would react to TODAY'S world. In the days of the founding fathers, the world was a vastly different place and the government they created was a response to that world. In addition to these cherry picked quotes, Jefferson also made it clear, as his monument attests, that to never evolve your thinking is akin to dressing a grown man in the coat he wore as a child.
Mike,
DeleteJefferson was a proud British citizen but much to the chagrin of the Crown and Parliament he was tired of their bullshit and decided to fight the status quo to obtain freedom. If King George (akin to King Obama) and Parliament would have relented on their tyrannical role in the colonies, the Revolution may have never occurred.
Regarding my modern sporting rifles comment, part of the reason that the Revolution was a success in the face of the British empire was that the "rebels" in many cases had superior weapons. The militia showed up to help Washington's army with rifle against the Brit's muskets. Muskets are relatively close range weapons while rifles are much more lethal at distance. This is why the 2nd amendment does not specify which arms are to be kept by citizens so that we are always capable of having the most modern weapons to keep government in check.
The liberal push to grab guns is always intended to limit the citizens ability to respond to tyranny from their further agenda including from another thread, Agenda 21.
The specific weapon was not what grabbed my attention, it's the belief that we in the present somehow could clearly predict how a person of historic importance would react to anything in today's world. Maybe you fervently believe the silly bombast you post about communists and marxists, maybe you don't. But the reality of today's American's is nothing compared to what citizens of the crown had to put up with in Jeffersons day. The use of the word tyranny, IMO, has become an empty gesture and I have grown as tired of it as I have with comparisons between W Bush and Hitler.
DeleteAngry as Jefferson was at the bullshit of the crown, he somehow was able to consider the slaves he owned and knocked up as less equal then he was in the eyes of God. I don't say that to talk shit about him, I say it to make the point that there was only so much conventional thought they were willing to get rid of. Quite possibly, Jefferson would be a Koch like figure paying for the muskets of others to fire on his behalf rather then doing it himself. Neither you nor I know that. For as much as anyone on the right believes they can pimp Jefferson's words to convince themselves Jefferson is just like them, I can find plenty of quotes that would suggest otherwise.
I have enormous respect for the founding fathers and for what they created, but I don't pretend I know with any certainty what they would say about the world today.
Hitler, Musolinni, and Stalin all started out as socialists. Stalin created his goal and killed millions under communism. Hitler and his minions killed many more under Facsisism............
DeleteI care for none of the above, and I will use my 2nd Amendment right to defend it.
But what allowed them achieve critical mass was fear and propaganda AND a belief in their populations that power at the end of a gun would save them. You know deep down Brian that none of us here who post with a left of center view idolize any of those people. Why you keep banging that drum, I'm not really sure why. I do believe there are those far down the left of center world who want all guns taken away. I'm not remotely in that camp. That said, I don't buy into the premise that you and 4 million other Americans are going to save America from the alleged communism and fascism that is coming.
DeleteThis has the makings of a great debate here. Well done to William for posting the clip. Most of us who read these threads would have a good understanding of the influence of Jefferson on your history. Some would have an appreciation of the influence of just a few others from one state. Of the first five Presidents I believe four were from Virginia and the sequence was broken by Old Hickory and a new philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be a good opportunity for William to respond in full to my question of a few weeks back. At least to us Hill Billy foreigners, an understanding of the aims and aspirations of the Tea Party movement is necessary. Here then is the question again, I undertake to accept Williams explanation, even if I do not agree with his reasoning. "Can I ask with the most respect I can muster, what part, if any, would the following play in the Tea Party movement if they were available today? Jefferson, Wythe, Madison and Adams (Samuel)...”
Cheers from Aussie
In his will, Wythe left his large book collection to Thomas Jefferson. This was part of the collection which Jefferson later sold to create the Library of Congress. Jefferson praised Wythe as "... my ancient master, my earliest and best friend, and to him I am indebted for first impressions which have [been] the most salutary on the course of my life."[103
DeleteHis fellow Virginia delegates in Philadelphia held Wythe in such esteem, that they left the first space open for Wythe when they signed the Declaration of Independence.[35] Moreover, John Adams, who did not like many Virginians, thought so highly of Wythe that he wrote 'Thoughts on Government' concerning establishing constitutions for state governments after the war.[36][37] Earlier in the session, Wythe also exchanged humorous verses with his friend delegate William Ellery of Rhode Island despite their political differences.[38] Wythe thus signed the Declaration of Independence upon his (and his wife's) return to Philadelphia in September. The signers' names were not made public until the following January, for all knew the declaration was an act of treason, punishable by death should their rebellion fail.[39]
One scholar states, without extensive documentation, that the problem of slavery preoccupied Wythe in his last years.[70] In 1785, Jefferson assured English abolitionist Richard Price that Wythe's sentiments against slavery were unequivocal.[71] During the first two decades after the war, so many Virginians freed slaves that the percentage of free blacks in the state rose from less than 1 percent to nearly 10 percent by 1810.[72
Wiki
Like most of his contemporaries, Madison changed his political views during his life. During the drafting and ratification of the constitution, he favored a strong national government, though later he grew to favor stronger state governments, before settling between the two extremes late in his life.
DeleteDuring these final years in the House of Delegates, Madison grew increasingly frustrated with what he saw as excessive democracy. He criticized the tendency for delegates to cater to the particular interests of their constituents, even if such interests were destructive to the state at large. In particular, he was troubled by a law that denied diplomatic immunity to ambassadors from other countries, and a law that legalized paper money.[21] He thought legislators should be "disinterested" and act in the interests of their state at large, even if this contradicted the wishes of constituents. This "excessive democracy," Madison grew to believe, was the cause of a larger social decay which he and others (such as Washington) believed had resumed after the revolution and was nearing a tipping point.
Those, like Madison, who thought democracy in the state legislatures was excessive and insufficiently "disinterested", wanted sovereignty transferred to the national government
Madison was one of the only delegates who wanted to deprive the states of sovereignty completely, which he considered the only solution to the problem
Tea Party
DeleteAdams took a leading role in the events that led up to the famous Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773, although the precise nature of his involvement has been disputed.
In May 1773, the British Parliament passed the Tea Act, a tax law to help the struggling East India Company, one of Great Britain's most important commercial institutions. Because of the heavy taxes imposed on tea imported into Great Britain, Britons could buy smuggled Dutch tea more cheaply than the East India Company's tea, and so the company amassed a huge surplus of tea that it could not sell.[121] The British government's solution to the problem was to sell the surplus in the colonies. The Tea Act permitted the East India Company, for the first time, to export tea directly to the colonies, bypassing most of the merchants who had previously acted as middlemen.[122] This measure was a threat to the American colonial economy because it granted the Tea Company a significant cost advantage over local tea merchants and even local tea smugglers, driving them out of business. The act also reduced the taxes on tea paid by the company in Britain, but kept the controversial Townshend duty on tea imported in the colonies. A few merchants in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Charlestown were selected to receive the company's tea for resale.[123] In late 1773, seven ships carrying East India Company tea were sent to the colonies, including four bound for Boston.[124]
News of the Tea Act set off a firestorm of protest in the colonies.[125] This was not a dispute about high taxes: the price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act. Protesters were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent.[126] Some colonists worried that by buying the cheaper tea, they would be conceding that Parliament had the right to tax them.[127] The "power of the purse" conflict was still at issue: The tea tax revenues were to be used to pay the salaries of certain royal officials, making them independent of the people.[128] Colonial smugglers played a significant role in the protests, since the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, which threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business.[129] Legitimate tea importers who had not been named as consignees by the East India Company were also threatened with financial ruin by the Tea Act,[130] and other merchants worried about the precedent of a government-created monopoly.[127]
Adams and the correspondence committees promoted opposition to the Tea Act.[132] In every colony except Massachusetts, protestors were able to force the tea consignees to resign or to return the tea to England.[133] In Boston, however, Governor Hutchinson was determined to hold his ground. He convinced the tea consignees, two of whom were his sons, not to back down.[134] The Boston Caucus and then the Town Meeting attempted to compel the consignees to resign, but they refused.[135] With the tea ships about to arrive, Adams and the Boston Committee of Correspondence contacted nearby committees to rally support.[136]
DeleteWhen the tea ship Dartmouth arrived in the Boston Harbor in late November, Adams wrote a circular letter calling for a mass meeting to be held at Faneuil Hall on November 29. Thousands of people arrived, so many that the meeting was moved to the larger Old South Meeting House.[137] British law required the Dartmouth to unload and pay the duties within twenty days or customs officials could confiscate the cargo.[138] The mass meeting passed a resolution, introduced by Adams, urging the captain of the Dartmouth to send the ship back without paying the import duty.[139] Meanwhile, the meeting assigned twenty-five men to watch the ship and prevent the tea from being unloaded.[140]
Governor Hutchinson refused to grant permission for the Dartmouth to leave without paying the duty. Two more tea ships, the Eleanor and the Beaver, arrived in Boston Harbor. The fourth ship, the William was stranded near Cape Cod and never arrived to Boston. On December 16—the last day of the Dartmouth's deadline—about 7,000 people had gathered around the Old South Meeting House.[141] After receiving a report that Governor Hutchinson had again refused to let the ships leave, Adams announced that "This meeting can do nothing further to save the country."[142] According to a popular story, Adams's statement was a prearranged signal for the "tea party" to begin. However, this claim did not appear in print until nearly a century after the event, in a biography of Adams written by his great-grandson, who apparently misinterpreted the evidence.[143] According to eyewitness accounts, people did not leave the meeting until ten or fifteen minutes after Adams's alleged "signal", and Adams in fact tried to stop people from leaving because the meeting was not yet over.[144]
While Adams tried to reassert control of the meeting, people poured out of the Old South Meeting House and headed to Boston Harbor. That evening, a group of 30 to 130 men, some of them thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded the three vessels and, over the course of three hours, dumped all 342 chests of tea into the water.[145] Adams never revealed if he went to the wharf to witness the destruction of the tea.[146] Whether or not he helped plan the event is unknown, but Adams immediately worked to publicize and defend it.[147] He argued that the Tea Party was not the act of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights.[148]
William
ReplyDeleteMy sincere thanks for the contribution. Your efforts deserve more than a glib reply so I hope you will accept my assurance that I shall study your contribution for a day or so.
What a great pity we could not get more civil debates going on this thread.
I appreciate your inquiries king. I really do. The founders realized that men may be equal but none of them are perfect. The bestowed rights therefore came from God not a king, not a prince, not a legislator, not a warlord.
Delete"We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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."
This in my humble opinion is the most important sentence written in the long history of man.
1773-2009 Today's Tea Party is doing it's level best, imperfectly as all men are, to follow the words of these giants.
This is not a glib reply Kingston, but William, as usual, did not answer your question. When pressed for a response, William is apt to do one of two things, cut and paste a torrent of others words, or attack the person questioning him and start hurling epithets of communist. As an American, it bothers me that so many have so little thought of their own in this country. Even on this site, I see an endless regurgitation of of talking points that are spewed so often they have no meaning.
DeletePersonally, I believe the founding fathers intended that there would be arguments and that there should be arguments in the course of governance. What I don't believe they intended was to have a bunch of sycophantic ass kissers using their words to sell an agenda. So, we've gone from an idea that that the government that governs least governs best to the government that is too dysfunctional to do anything is the best of all worlds. I believe the FF left us a flexible government so that we could create laws and stability for ourselves and that through the election process, we could change laws to meet new realities. Of course, they also made it abundantly clear to be wary of the belief that government could solve all disputes between the people. It cannot.
What passes for debate these days is largely just a shrieking of words of long dead men whose rightful place is in the history and context of the world they lived in.
William and Max
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that any response I make here could be taken by one or either of you to be contrary to your own views. Such a situation has never before prevented me from putting in my two cents worth so here we go.
William of course has not answered my question, but then is it possible see into minds which have been revered for two centuries and bring forward their ideals and concepts into the present?. Here I think we have the kernel of the debate concerning the ultra Right philosophy. I say ultra right because I find difficulty in placing the Tea party ideals anywhere else in the spectrum as we know it today here in Australia.
So let us examine the posts from William; whether they were lifted from already published material is of little consequence. That they express a view is what matters and that they are open to debate matters even more.
I believe, as with Jefferson, Wythe was influenced by his association with William and Mary College. That he was able to form a friendship with William Small his Scottish professor which in turn led him into contact and friendship with Governor Fauquier was not only a defining moment in the life of Wythe but also Jefferson who was introduced into the group at an early stage. Here I think we may see the beginnings not of revolution, but of enquiry! These men were not content to ruminate and accept what they had; they needed to follow ideas which then developed into ideals.
The association between Jefferson and Wythe of course led to a partnership which continued for many years. Whthe supported Jefferson in the Virginian capital and his support for the Bill for religious freedom in 1779 together with support from Madison which eventually created a state of freedom never before envisaged. I feel that the “Freedom” act had much to do with the manner in which the Republic developed.
Madison has always been an enigma to me. His support for and friendship with Jefferson ensured he had to amount to something but I often wonder if his character was sufficient to cope with the tasks he undertook. A supporter he certainly was but as a leader I question his effectives. To support this contention I cite the war with England in which amongst other disasters the Poms burnt Washington. I think history, with the benefit of modern communications is a little harsh in chiding the memory of Madison for declaring war the day after England had acceded to American demands re the impressment of Americans into the British Navy. His tendency to back flip on previously announced policies was legendary and as an example we have the US bank in 1816 and then soon after he signed a tariff bill to which he had previously been implacably opposed.
No appreciation of Madison can fail to include his scholarly efforts with the Constitution, his part in the deliberations will stand throughout history and his notes I believe are a revelation. Finally, I believe the inclusion of Madisons hand in the Federalist Papers are to historians, as important as his record as your fourth President.
" but then is it possible see into minds which have been revered for two centuries and bring forward their ideals and concepts into the present?."
DeleteAn equal question perhaps is whether the study of history is a science or an art. Much of what's being said here strikes me as history as an art, which is to say, it is a colorful tapestry woven in such a way to portray the founding fathers in a manner that suits those with a present day agenda. Certainly, we can look at things those men (not women of that day of course) said and get a flavor for their character and their views on what was right and wrong with the world....at that time.
Something I never shut up about is a belief that context matters. There is plenty in the general principles of freedoms that these men put into our constitution that can serve as guidance. But, to answer your question, I don't think we can solve our problems of today by imagining what the founding fathers would have done and act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteWe must now turn our minds to Samuel Adams .A man who failed in every endeavour he undertook apart from that of an agitator. That he was sincere in his beliefs I am sure, that he was influenced by John Hancock I suspect and that he was one of the mob who led the “Tea Party” raid I also suspect. But I believe it was Hancock at the forefront of the raid... I have no quarrel with the reactionary attitude of the “Rebels”; given the opportunity I think I would have joined them. Taxation without representation is cause enough for any revolution. I do have some misgivings however as to the motives of Hancock (was he not the first to place his signature on the Declaration of Independence?). My research indicates Hancock can be labelled a smuggler, a brigand and in modern terminology a Wall Street banker! At the time of the Tea Party raid Hancock had a warehouse full of smuggled tea and the British Import would have been cheaper than his own stocks. I guess we could say Hancock had a vested interest (reference J H Preston Revolution 1932).
So much then for the posts by William, at least, so much that I am confident enough to write without references other than dates and Prestons opinions which I looked up today.
I am no further advanced in the positions Jefferson, Whythe or Adams would take today. Perhaps Adams would still be a revolutionary agitator Whythe would support Jefferson but who would Jefferson support? He was too much the revolutionary in spirit to accept your present political system, that is unacceptable even to the basest of men unless they have their asses ensconced in the comfortable chairs on the hill.
I also wonder, just as a fleeting thought, would the Bill of Rights be written today, as it was over 200 years ago? In the opinion of this old meddling Aussie, I suggest not and the second would be rejected at the first draft stage.
So, William can you enlighten us on your views as to the key players were they to come back to day? I can assert that they are sorely needed, not to revolt but to live out, if they can, the inalienable rights you quoted in your posts.
Cheers then from Aussie and my thanks again for the opportunity to debate.
King, thanks for the response, very interesting indeed. My response will be segmented and may take a period of days, not weeks to formulate.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, as for the Tea Party being "ultra right wing" as you posit I can only wonder where on the spectrum would the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, Posse Comitatus, Tim McVeigh, the Davidian's, and Weaver family fit?
Active Militia movements vary as to their intensity but The 2nd is held very close to their hearts. I hope the list I transcribe below passes through the gmail filter.
United States militia groups, 2010[21] Milita group name State, county or locale
Delete2nd Alabama Militia Alabama, Mobile
Alabama Shoals Badgers Alabama, Tuscumbia
Alaska Citizens Militia Alaska, Nikiski
Arizona Citizens Militia Arizona, Douglas
Arizona Militia Arizona, Glendale
Cochise County Militia Arizona, Tombstone
Northern Arizona Militia Arizona, Flagstaff
Militia of Washington County Arkansas, Fayetteville
American Resistance Movement All States, USA/Nation-Wide area
State of California Unorganized Militia California, Monrovia
Minutemen Militia Colorado, Fort Collins
Florida Free Alliance Florida, Nokomis
Florida Free Militia Florida, Palm Coast
Georgia Militia Georgia, Chatham County
Militia of Georgia Georgia, Lawrenceville
Idaho Citizens Constitutional Militia Idaho, statewide
North Idaho Light Foot Militia Idaho, Bonner County
135th Illinois Volunteer Cavalry Illinois, statewide
Illinois State Militia (Unorganized) 167th Battalion, 21st FF Illinois, statewide
Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia, 3rd Brigade Indiana, Tippecanoe County
Indiana Constitutional Militia Indiana, statewide
Indiana Militia Corps Indiana, Statewide
Indiana Sedentary Militia Indiana, Hendricks County
Indiana Sons of Liberty Indiana, Statewide
Indiana's Greene County Militia Indiana, Greene County
Indiana State Militia 14th Regiment Indiana, Owen County
Kansas State Militia Kansas, Wichita
1st Joint Public Militia Kentucky, Bowling Green
Kentucky State Militia - Ohio Valley Command Kentucky, Louisville
Northern Kentucky Militia 105th "Blue Guard" Kentucky, Bracken,Mason,Pendleton,Countys
Louisiana Militia Louisiana, statewide
Louisiana Unorganized Militia Louisiana, Abbeville
Maine Constitutional Militia Maine, statewide
Southern Sons of Liberty Maryland, statewide
Delta 5 Mobile Light Infantry Militia Michigan, Eaton County
East-Central Volunteer Militia of Michigan Michigan, Lapeer County
DeleteHutaree Militia Michigan, Southern
Jackson County Volunteers Michigan, Jackson County
Lenawee County Free and Independent Militia Michigan, Adrian
Michigan Militia Michigan, Redford
Michigan Militia Corps Wolverines 8th Division Michigan, South Central
Northern Michigan Backyard Protection Militia Michigan, Northern
Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia Michigan, 13 counties
West Michigan Volunteer Militia Michigan, Muskegon County
Capitol City Militia Michigan, Eaton County and Ingham County
Mid Michigan Militia Michigan,7 Counties,centered around Ingham County
Ocqueoc Militia Michigan, Presque Isle County, Montmorency County, Alpena County, Cheboygan County
Minnesota Militia/Army of Mississippi Minnesota, St. Cloud
Minnesota Minutemen militia Minnesota
Constitution Defense Militia of Attala County (CDMAC) Mississippi, Attala County
East Central Mississippi Militia Mississippi, East Central
Missouri Militia Missouri, Kansas City
Militia of Montana Montana, Noxon
New Hampshire Patriot Militia New Hampshire, statewide
United States Constitution Rangers New Hampshire, West Lebanon
New Jersey Militia New Jersey, Trenton
New Jersey Guardian Angels New Jersey, Jackson
Empire State Militia 11th Field Force New York, Northwestern
Sons of Liberty New York, Buffalo
Bloodville Volunteers New York, Saratoga County
North Carolina Citizens Militia North Carolina, Charlotte
Constitutional Militia of Clark County Ohio, Clark County
Northeastern Ohio Defense Force 3BN Ohio, Lisbon
Northwestern Ohio Defense Force 4BN Ohio, Kenton
Ohio Defense Force State Headquarters Ohio, Zanesville
Ohio Militia Ohio, statewide
Southeastern Ohio Defense Force 3rd Platoon Ohio, Belmont County
Southwestern Ohio Defense Force 5BN Ohio, Lebanon
Unorganized Militia of Champaign County Ohio, St. Paris
Oregon Militia Corps Oregon, statewide
Southern Oregon Militia Oregon, Eagle Point
Keystone Freedom Fighters Pennsylvania, Gettysburg
East Tennessee Militia Tennessee, East
American Patriots for Freedom Foundation Texas, Spring
Central Texas Militia Texas, Central
Texas Well Regulated Militia Texas, Edwards County
Texas State Militia Texas
Virginia Citizens Militia Virginia, Roanoke
King County Volunteer Militia Washington, King County
Kitsap County WA Militia Washington, Kitsap County
Washington State Militia Washington, statewide
Most of these militia's are anything but "Well regulated" as stated in our 2nd. All would fight to the death to support their interpretation that we enjoy that right to bear.
DeleteMore later today if time allows.
Let's deal with Mr. Jefferson at the onset. As conservative journalist George Will stated, Jefferson was the man of the millennium.
DeleteA must read "The five thousand year leap" develops the thesis that the cauldron of history simmered for thousands of years without the creation of political thought on a level of that created during the 17th and 18th centuries enlightenment.
"John Locke FRS (pron.: /ˈlɒk/; 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704), widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism,[2][3][4] was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory. His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.[5]
Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin of modern conceptions of identity and the self, figuring prominently in the work of later philosophers such as Hume, Rousseau and Kant. Locke was the first to define the self through a continuity of consciousness. He postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa. Contrary to pre-existing Cartesian philosophy, he maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception.[6]"
wiki
"John Locke's (1632–1704) ideas on liberty greatly influenced the political thinking behind the revolution, especially through his indirect influence on English writers.[clarification needed] He is often referred to as "the philosopher of the American Revolution," and is credited with leading Americans to the critical concepts of social contract, natural rights, and "born free and equal."[6] Locke's Two Treatises of Government, published in 1689, was especially influential; Locke in turn was influenced by Protestant theology.[7] He argued that, as all humans were created equally free, governments needed the consent of the governed.[8] Both Lockean concepts were central to the United States Declaration of Independence, which deduced human equality, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from the biblical belief in creation: "All men are created equal, ... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
Delete"A leader in the Enlightenment, Jefferson was a polymath who spoke five languages fluently and was deeply interested in science, invention, architecture, religion and philosophy, interests that led him to the founding of the University of Virginia after his presidency. He designed his own large mansion on a 5,000 acre plantation near Charlottesville, Virginia, which he named Monticello. While not a notable orator, Jefferson was a skilled writer and corresponded with many influential people in America and Europe throughout his adult life.[3]"
Delete"Jefferson believed that each man has "certain inalienable rights". He defines the right of "liberty" by saying, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others..."[147] A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty. Jefferson and contemporaries like James Madison were well aware of the possibility of tyranny from the majority and held this perspective in their implication of individual rights.[148] The historian Gordon S. Wood argues that Jefferson's political philosophy was a product of his time and his scientific interests. Influenced by Isaac Newton, he considered social systems as analogous to physical systems.[149] In the social world, Jefferson likens love as a force similar to gravity in the physical world. People are naturally attracted to each other through love, but dependence corrupts this attraction and results in political problems.[149] Wood argues that, though the phrase "all men are created equal" was a cliché in the late 18th century,[149] Jefferson took it further than most. Jefferson held that not only are all men created equal, but they remain equal throughout their lives, equally capable of love as an attractive force. Their level of dependence makes them unequal in practice. Removing or preventing corrupting dependence would enable men to be equal in practice.[149] Jefferson idealized a future in which men would be free of dependencies, particularly those caused by banking or royal influences.[149]"
"While Jefferson believed most persons could not escape corrupting dependence, the franchise should be extended only to those who could. His fear of dependence and patronage made Jefferson dislike established institutions, such as banking, government, or military. He disliked inter-generational dependence, as well as its manifestations, such as national debt and unalterable governments. For these reasons, he opposed Hamilton's consolidated banking and military plans.[149] Jefferson and Hamilton were diametrically opposed on the issue of individual liberties. While Jefferson believed individual liberty was the fruit of equality and believed government to be the only danger, Hamilton felt that individual liberty must be organized by a central government to assure social, economic and intellectual equality.[150] Wood argues that Hamilton favored his plans for the very reason that Jefferson feared them, because he believed that they would provide for future American greatness. Jefferson feared a loss of individual liberty for propertied individuals and did not desire imperial stature for the nation.[149]"
ReplyDeletewiki
As for Jefferson's place in a modern Tea Party I'll leave you with one final thought King.
Delete"During the French Revolution, Jefferson advocated rebellion and violence when necessary. In a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, Jefferson wrote, "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical...It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."[171] Similarly, in a letter to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787 he wrote, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."[171]
The modern Tea Party of 2009 has advocated a spirit of respectful resistance. A more stern form of Jefferson rebellion may be around the corner. Time and history will tell.
William. Another quote from another great President. ------Government of the people, by the people, for the people-----------. So, if you advocate a spirit of respectful resistance, surely this in and of itself can defeat the logic of Lincoln’s words. Government of the people equates to the government elected by the majority of College votes which normally follow the majority of the popular vote. I would respectfully argue that the college is anti democratic in that it can override the popular vote.
ReplyDeleteWe have seen the result of respectful resistance in the votes in the Senate. While some Republicans would cross the aisle to facilitate sensible and vital legislation, those whom I consider as the rusted on opponents of anything, stubbornly refuse to move and the result is the deadlock we constantly see but fail to understand in the wider world.
Just one example is the proposed gun law reform. Who governs America, the elected government or the NRA?
Cheers from Aussie
It remains amazing to me that your view of our government is couched in a term such as deadlock. After all, aren't we finding a way to expedite about 3.8 trillion dollars of spending this fiscal year? Every single one of those greenbacks is appropriated, every one of our almost 800 billion of deficit spent upon agreement between our two socialist parties.
DeleteYou continue to deny that a majority of our three branches consist of the party in opposition to the current president. More representatives, more governors, more state legislators, more local committee people simply are on the other side. The president had his majorities for the first two years of his initial term, "the people" recognized the disastrous results, and his minions suffered an historic over turn. This is government "of the people."
The republican spenders, followed by the democrat spenders, have slotted us into an estimated 20 trillion dollar debt by the end of the president's second term. The representatives being elected are being sent to cut spending. Call it anything you want from the outside, from the inside this is the deffinition of sanity.
Our discussions will ultimately lead to a survey of the damages caused by the Lincoln administration. The worst four years suffered in our history require a healthy examination of Abraham's brutal miscalculations, the propaganda surrounding his exploits is unsurpassed by even that surrounding FDR. Both by the way killed more Americans than all of our other 42 presidents combined.
Cheers and good on Adam Scott.
William.
ReplyDeleteA re-examination of Lincolns place in history should provide a lively discussion on this forum. What a pity it is however a discussion between two people only. Leaving Lincoln aside for the moment, we seem to have a problem with my understanding of your system of government and in fact our respective definitions of government in general.
Having followed the gun law reform debate for the past few months let me start from there. The following are facts as I understand them. Please feel free to correct my "facts" and for this small segment I shall refrain from offering opinion.
(1)Following a spate of random killings the national outcry was such that lawmakers were forced into action. (2) As the President of your country, Pres Obama took the lead and proposed changes to various laws and the introduction of new ones. (3) The matter was debated and amended in the House but was rejected in the Senate.
Now to opinion which of course is open to argument. The NRA has been implacably opposed to any gun laws; in fact they are advocating relaxation of what few laws exist. The NRA also is working under the slogan:"the best defense against a bad man with a gun; is a good man with a gun
"
I suggest to you that this is a spurious argument and that if the gun is made unavailable to the bad man, the good man does not need a gun either.
Now back to your point concerning my lack of understanding of your system of government. Yes I concede you are correct; for years I believed the three tiers were in order of diminishing responsibility President House and Senate. The concept of a "Lame Duck" President has only recently taken so much of my attention, perhaps because to me, the stakes are so high that it has become imperative that all three work together. No one man has a monopoly on wisdom and good ideas and although a dream of a rainbows end; it is surely time to get the job done rather than petty point scoring.
Cheers from Aussie
""The NRA also is working under the slogan:"the best defense against a bad man with a gun; is a good man with a gun"
ReplyDeleteI suggest to you that this is a spurious argument and that if the gun is made unavailable to the bad man, the good man does not need a gun either.""
I suppose in a utopian society no one would need guns. If someone should have a gun Kingston, who do you suppose should be trusted? And, what if that person, or group of people, suddenly has the penchant for control, for making themselves king? Who then could stop them?
Kingston, the three branches of government in theory are all equal and perform their separate duties. A small "r" republican posits that the House of Representatives is the most important because it lives closest (or should live closest) to the people. Far away centralized government in the form of one man (President), or one hundred men (Senate), can never encompass the diversity of thought that a body of 5-600 men will provide to create healthy governance over the long haul of history.
King, the stakes are always high. Clinton's second term was successful because he moved towards the majority opposition. Our present president seems incapable of shedding his ideological underpinnings. It will be a long and unsuccessful term based on his blind side. The stakes are always high. Leadership is rare. We are in a period of limited leadership. History is long, things will change.