If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

E. P. Link in his book, Democratic-Republican Societies 1790-1800, published in 1942 lists 42 societies with at least 15 labeled Democratic and two useing the hyphenated Democratic-Republican label.

and???????????????

So according to some historians the term Democratic-Republicans was used before 1800.

Dear, we were talking about Political Parties, not societies.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Not at all. I say Democratic Republicans because Democratic Republican party is the current commonly used term when referring to Jefferson's Republicans.

you mean commonly used by some current liberals who don't want to acknowledge that Democrats and their treasonous ideology had no place at the founding or in America.

WIKI: "The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790s, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights."

I'm well aware that they called it the Republican party back then.

and do you know why liberals must pretend otherwise?????

However, if I say Republicans to refer to Jefferson's Republicans and the GOP both, it'll create confusion when trying to differ between which I'm referring to.

do you know when term GOP became significant???

After all, on a -LITERAL- level, they are two different things.

Yes but so were Jefferson's Republicans and the National Republicans.

Most importantly its absurd to use the term Democratic Republican Party when it only existed for perhaps 15 years, while Republican has existed for all of American History

My usage of the term doesn't take into account who made the term, for what reason, or for how long it's been popular, and I'm not attempting to lend it credibility. I don't care (in the context of my usage) who caused the term's popularity or why. I only care that it is a popular enough term that, when I use it, people understand what I'm talking about. My usage of various different terms is simply a function of my writing style, one that changes up monikers in subsequent references in order to avoid literary stagnation.

Other than that, we don't seem to have any conflicting ideas here, so. . . good talk.

 

[regent]

and???????????????

So according to some historians the term Democratic-Republicans was used before 1800.

Dear, we were talking about Political Parties, not societies.

But you were talking about the use of that term, not political parties.

This is your quote:

"why would you say Democratic Republicans when I have bet you $10000 that there is no known use of that term in the 18th Century. Are you slow?"

Please send the money as quickly as you can. Thanking you in advance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So according to some historians the term Democratic-Republicans was used before 1800.

Dear, we were talking about Political Parties, not societies.

But you were talking about the use of that term, not political parties.

This is your quote:

"why would you say Democratic Republicans when I have bet you $10000 that there is no known use of that term in the 18th Century. Are you slow?"

Please send the money as quickly as you can. Thanking you in advance.

Dear, obviously we are talking about use of the term Democratic-Republican as the name of a political party in the 1790's. You have not found such usage so we must conclude there was none. This means the party Jefferson founded was called the Republican Party as indicated by all the Congressional Records, Jefferson's letters, speeches, and newspaper articles of the era.

By demanding money you have in effect accepted the bet and are now legally obligated to pay.

 

[Dragon]

The bottom line, of course, is that the party founded by Jefferson in the late 18th century, and the party founded in the mid 19th century whose first elected president was Abraham Lincoln, were not the same party. Today's Republican Party is the one whose first elected president was Lincoln, not the one founded by Jefferson.

That's a fact, and it will remain a fact no matter what word games are played around similarities of nomenclature. It is no more true that Jefferson's party currently holds a majority in the House of Representatives, than it is that Obama's predecessor needs an employee to follow behind him sweeping up falling leaves (because he's a "Bush").

In fact, the party founded by Jefferson is the one that has the White House and a majority in the Senate. And that, too, is a fact regardless of what word games are played.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I only care that it is a popular enough term that, when I use it, people understand what I'm talking about.

What they understand when you use the fradulent term "Democratic-Republican" to describe Jefferson's "Republican Party" is that you've been tricked by liberal historians into thinking that modern big government Democrats have a connection to founding American principles when really their connections is to Cuba!!

 

[sparky]

Slave slut Jefferson would have Hallie Berry picking cotton in the rose garden...~S~

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Slave slut Jefferson would have Hallie Berry picking cotton in the rose garden...~S~

always the dumbest one here aren't you?

 

[regent]

Yes, apparently the historians have tricked a lot of people. Every history book I looked at has the Democratic-Republicans listed as Jeffersonians, and a number giving the date of 1792. Even the Oxford Guide to the United States Government lists 1792 for the Democratic-Republican beginnng. Fortunately you are around to set them, and us, straight with your take on history.
And the Cuba connection is really something again. So what about liberals, do they have a connection to America's founding principles?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Fortunately you are around to set them, and us, straight with your take on history.

its not a take dear, its reading the Congressinal Record, newspapers , speeches, ballots, letters or the era, etc. Of course liberals have reason to lie about the founding!!!

WIKI: "Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790s, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans",

.
And the Cuba connection is really something again. So what about liberals, do they have a connection to America's founding principles?

No of course not. America is about freedom from liberal government. You are only learning that now? The Constitution in effect was to make liberalism illegal.

 

[regent]

. Fortunately you are around to set them, and us, straight with your take on history.

its not a take dear, its reading the Congressinal Record, newspapers , speeches, ballots, letters or the era, etc. Of course liberals have reason to lie about the founding!!!

WIKI: "Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790s, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans",

.
And the Cuba connection is really something again. So what about liberals, do they have a connection to America's founding principles?

No of course not. America is about freedom from liberal government. You are only learning that now? The Constitution in effect was to make liberalism illegal.

Well as one conservative said: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur
I hope MacArthur was not another Cuban?

 

[Old Rocks]

you, sir, are a fucking maroon

if so why be so afraid to present your evidence? What does your fear tell you?

Just on one issue, Jefferson would disavow the present Republican Party.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

 

[regent]

you, sir, are a fucking maroon

if so why be so afraid to present your evidence? What does your fear tell you?

Just on one issue, Jefferson would disavow the present Republican Party.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

The evidence is overwhelming that the Democratic-Republican party began in 1792. Not only do most history books mention that fact but say the Democratic-Republican party of Jefferson, after the 1800 election, then changed their name to Republican."

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I only care that it is a popular enough term that, when I use it, people understand what I'm talking about.

What they understand when you use the fradulent term "Democratic-Republican" to describe Jefferson's "Republican Party" is that you've been tricked by liberal historians into thinking that modern big government Democrats have a connection to founding American principles when really their connections is to Cuba!!

So despite the fact that I say that it's my opinion that today's Republicans spew rhetoric that's closer to Jeffersonian principles than that which the Democrats spew, the fact that I would use the term Democratic-Republican clues you in the fact that I -really- believe the opposite?

Am I some kinda Democrat spy implanted on a message board? I don't get where you're coming from with this stupidity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Really...

Jefferson is not credited with founding the GOP.

STFU you moron

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bfgrn]

The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854, it is often called the GOP (Grand Old Party).

Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826)

EPIC fail!

 

[code1211]

you, sir, are a fucking maroon

if so why be so afraid to present your evidence? What does your fear tell you?

Just on one issue, Jefferson would disavow the present Republican Party.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

It is very likely that jefferson saw this wall as a protection of the rights if the individual to enjoy the free exercise of religion, not a barrier of the thoughts of religion from entering into government.

The thoughts of Jefferson that reverberate through the years are those that were in the Declaration. Without the Declaration, this letter would never have been written, Jefferson would never have been remembered and our country would never have been founded.

The absolute and undeniable basis of the Declaration is that we are endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights. To demand of succeeding generations that they believe that Jefferson demanded an agnostic or atheistic government is a perversion of his thoughts, hopes and beliefs.


The specific passage in the letter to which Jefferson responds:

<snip> And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.<snip>


http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=65

 

[Dragon]

The idea that today's Republicans are rhetorically (let alone in actions) closer to Jefferson's politics than the Democrats is a classic case of confusing ends with means, and also of failing to understand the difference between agrarian liberalism and industrial liberalism. Liberalism of any kind is about equality, and hence the liberty of ordinary people (which is where the name comes from). Agrarian liberalism is the advocacy of policies that will serve this end in the context of an agrarian economy. Industrial liberalism is the advocacy of policies that will serve this end in the context of an industrial economy. We are currently groping towards what might be called a post-industrial liberalism, but it's not completely clear what that would consist of.

Thomas Jefferson was an agrarian liberal, while those few of today's Democrats that are any sort of liberal are either industrial liberals or else trying to be post-industrial liberals. There's a difference in means, but not in ends, and none of them can properly be called conservative.

Here's a quote from Jefferson that I like to use to emphasize just how RADICALLY FAR his views were from those of today's Republicans. I may have posted this on this thread already; if I did, obviously some people need a reminder, so here it is.

As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

Emphasis added. Can anyone imagine a Republican today expressing views like that? Of course not, and so not only is the OP technically (and obviously) dead wrong as to the origins of the Republican Party, he is also dead wrong in his underlying thesis that the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson held views similar to those of today's Republicans. It's true that he was a small-government advocate, but only as a means to an end, and the end -- economic equality -- is one no Republican believes in.

For that matter, no Republican really believes in small government, either.

 

[code1211]

The idea that today's Republicans are rhetorically (let alone in actions) closer to Jefferson's politics than the Democrats is a classic case of confusing ends with means, and also of failing to understand the difference between agrarian liberalism and industrial liberalism. Liberalism of any kind is about equality, and hence the liberty of ordinary people (which is where the name comes from). Agrarian liberalism is the advocacy of policies that will serve this end in the context of an agrarian economy. Industrial liberalism is the advocacy of policies that will serve this end in the context of an industrial economy. We are currently groping towards what might be called a post-industrial liberalism, but it's not completely clear what that would consist of.

Thomas Jefferson was an agrarian liberal, while those few of today's Democrats that are any sort of liberal are either industrial liberals or else trying to be post-industrial liberals. There's a difference in means, but not in ends, and none of them can properly be called conservative.

Here's a quote from Jefferson that I like to use to emphasize just how RADICALLY FAR his views were from those of today's Republicans. I may have posted this on this thread already; if I did, obviously some people need a reminder, so here it is.

As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

Emphasis added. Can anyone imagine a Republican today expressing views like that? Of course not, and so not only is the OP technically (and obviously) dead wrong as to the origins of the Republican Party, he is also dead wrong in his underlying thesis that the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson held views similar to those of today's Republicans. It's true that he was a small-government advocate, but only as a means to an end, and the end -- economic equality -- is one no Republican believes in.

For that matter, no Republican really believes in small government, either.

You have posted this before. It is wise to note that the encounter remembered by Jefferson above was in France, not the USA. His references to the inequality of the property divisions contained there in are to the system of pre-revolutionary France.

In that place and time the ownership of land was the result of a class system and the woman with whom he spoke was of a non propertied class. It was for all intents and purposes, illegal for her to own land and she and her heirs were perpetually banned from ever rising above the caste into which she was born.

In that condition was this monologue written.

The condition of the individual in a system like ours in which an individual is allowed by nothing more nor less than the contents of his checking account and the stability of his credit record to own property. This example is empty except as it demonstrates that our system provides individual economic mobility and that one did not.

As such, this demonstrates that the power of the individual to rise by the work of his own hand and the planning of his own life is both secure and available to all.

That some choose to not be industrious or choose to be disinterested observers in their own lives is a mystery to me.

By pretending that nobody can rise except by the hand of the government lifting them ignores that the hand of government is already there providing an easily accessed ladder. All that is needed of the individual is the will to climb.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."-Thomas Jefferson

"...in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution..."-Thomas Jefferson

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" - One of Thomas Jefferson's seals

Your quote is an interesting one, Dragon, but it cannot be said definitively based on that one quote that the end goal of Jefferson's philosophy was economic equality by any means available, including a powerful, centralized government. Based on several of his other quotes, it could be argued (perhaps not definitively) that the end he was seeking through the means of small government was the prevention of that government's slide into tyranny and the preservation of everyone's self determination.

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."-Thomas Jefferson

That quote alone seems to contradict your assessment in that it implies, through use of the word, "always", that no matter what the purpose is, big government is never a proper means to achieve it. It also contradicts, to some degree, the letter you posted, and thus my argument and my assessment aren't definitive. . . but neither are your's.

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."-Thomas Jefferson

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, -&#8364;&#732;the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'" -Thomas Jefferson

These quotes show that, even from an economic standpoint, much of the Republicans' rhetoric mirrors some of what Jefferson expressed.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]" -Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment

Republican rhetoric tends to be in favor of the 2nd Amendment and gun rights in general while Democratic rhetoric tends to be against.

Based on these quotes and despite the letter you've posted, I hold to my opinion that Republican rhetoric is closer to Jeffersonian principle than Democrat rhetoric, though I don't claim to be definitively correct in my assessment. I didn't know the man personally. I also acknowledge that much of what the Republicans actually legislate is in complete contradiction to many of these sentiments expressed by TJ.

Along the lines of this argument in relation to the OP, however, that posted letter definitely shows room for the argument that the entire premise of the post is bunk.