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

[Bfgrn]

"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

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."-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

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."-Thomas Jefferson

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 many 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

"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

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

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

And again, "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

Republican rhetoric tends to be in favor of the 2nd Amendment 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.

Great, a bunch of quotes most of which Thomas Jefferson never said.

 

[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

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."-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

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."-Thomas Jefferson

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 many 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

"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

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

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

And again, "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

Republican rhetoric tends to be in favor of the 2nd Amendment 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.

Great, a bunch of quotes most of which Thomas Jefferson never said.

I stand corrected. Further research spurred by this response has shown me that, in my haste to respond, I did indeed include a fair number of quotes mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson. Editing my post now to remove the offending lines and insert the actual quotes upon which some of these mistakes seem to be based.

My thanks for pointing this out. Every exposed fallacy in my thinking places me some degree closer to the truth.

 

[Dragon]

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.

Of course they are, but the point is that he found the effects of gross inequality of wealth unacceptable. His point in thinking of these things was, "How can we make sure nothing like that happens in America?" Today's Republicans don't consider gross inequality of wealth a problem; as best I can tell, for them that's a feature, not a bug.

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.

Well, that's not quite correct (France had no rigid caste system, that would be India), but it's true that the government upheld the privileges of the nobility and the clergy. That's why classical liberals were against big government. It was a MEANS, not an END: a way to ensure that massive economic injustice such as plagued Europe would not happen here. And yet, you will note that Jefferson was not averse to such methods as a graduated property tax to prevent and/or cure the problem.

In a capitalist industrialist economy, though, it's quite possible for similar inequities to develop without the existence of a titled nobility or other government action upholding a privileged elite. That's why modern liberals, though retaining a desire to restrain government abuses, have abandoned their opposition to big government per se. Government is the only tool available to restrain corporate abuses of liberty. Industrial liberalism pursues the same ends by different means, because the old means have become counterproductive.

This example is empty except as it demonstrates that our system provides individual economic mobility and that one did not.

Frankly, Jefferson would look at the massively unequal distribution of wealth in this society, and the suffering that results, and be appalled. So I don't think you want to go there.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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!

5th Congress (1797-1799)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803)

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34

"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's].

Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."

- Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.


"In referring to political parties I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party".

The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.


-

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Frankly, Jefferson would look at the massively unequal distribution of wealth in this society, and the suffering that results, and be appalled. So I don't think you want to go there.

Actually Jefferson loved inequality, just not the kind caused by by big liberal government:

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
Address, 1805.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Great, a bunch of quotes most of which Thomas Jefferson never said.

but all of which exactly reflect the Republican Jeffersonian American philosophy of freedom from liberal government.

So what place do liberals have in America?

 

[Bfgrn]

Great, a bunch of quotes most of which Thomas Jefferson never said.

but all of which exactly reflect the Republican Jeffersonian American philosophy of freedom from liberal government.

So what place do liberals have in America?

It doesn't matter what it reflects to YOU. Because it doesn't reflect Thomas Jefferson's beliefs. Most of it was not said by Thomas Jefferson, who was a liberal, not a conservative.

Sourced Jefferson quotes:

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It doesn't matter what it reflects to YOU. Because it doesn't reflect Thomas Jefferson's beliefs. Most of it was not said by Thomas Jefferson, who was a liberal, not a conservative.

so if Jefferson did not form the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for very very limited government what did he form it for and fight for all his life?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

dear, I am so sorry but you are just not intelligent enough to be here. You see, some words can have 2 meanings. This you learn in elementary school. So yes, they were liberals in the sense that they wanted rapid change to a new government, but, the change they wanted was to a limited, small, conservative Republican government.
If you're still confused I suggest going over it with your parents over and over until finally sinks in. PLease let me know how you do.

 

[code1211]

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.

Of course they are, but the point is that he found the effects of gross inequality of wealth unacceptable. His point in thinking of these things was, "How can we make sure nothing like that happens in America?" Today's Republicans don't consider gross inequality of wealth a problem; as best I can tell, for them that's a feature, not a bug.

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.

Well, that's not quite correct (France had no rigid caste system, that would be India), but it's true that the government upheld the privileges of the nobility and the clergy. That's why classical liberals were against big government. It was a MEANS, not an END: a way to ensure that massive economic injustice such as plagued Europe would not happen here. And yet, you will note that Jefferson was not averse to such methods as a graduated property tax to prevent and/or cure the problem.

In a capitalist industrialist economy, though, it's quite possible for similar inequities to develop without the existence of a titled nobility or other government action upholding a privileged elite. That's why modern liberals, though retaining a desire to restrain government abuses, have abandoned their opposition to big government per se. Government is the only tool available to restrain corporate abuses of liberty. Industrial liberalism pursues the same ends by different means, because the old means have become counterproductive.

This example is empty except as it demonstrates that our system provides individual economic mobility and that one did not.

Frankly, Jefferson would look at the massively unequal distribution of wealth in this society, and the suffering that results, and be appalled. So I don't think you want to go there.

Jefferson would be pleased that anyone, ANYONE, can rise in this society regardless of Gender, class, national origin or anything else. Anyone, ANYONE, can gain an education and take advantage of all that society offers.

Conversely, anyone can ignore opportunity and avoid success by poor choices.

Mistakes matter and many people make them in truckloads on a daily basis.

The problem with freedom is that we are just as free to succeed as we are free to fail.

The problem with the inequity in the division of wealth is not that so many are poor but that so many are wealthy. The ceiling just keeps rising here. The floor stays where it is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem with the inequity in the division of wealth is not that so many are poor but that so many are wealthy. The ceiling just keeps rising here. The floor stays where it is.

When Newt ended welfare as we know it by requiring work, 70% dropped off the rolls. This indicates that liberals are causing much of the failure among the lower classes.

 

[Bfgrn]

It doesn't matter what it reflects to YOU. Because it doesn't reflect Thomas Jefferson's beliefs. Most of it was not said by Thomas Jefferson, who was a liberal, not a conservative.

so if Jefferson did not form the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for very very limited government what did he form it for and fight for all his life?

Here is your very very limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

 

[Dragon]

Jefferson would be pleased that anyone, ANYONE, can rise in this society regardless of Gender, class, national origin or anything else. Anyone, ANYONE, can gain an education and take advantage of all that society offers.

That is untrue, and therefore he would not. And besides, note that there is a marked difference in meaning between the words "anyone" and "everyone." Even if, theoretically, and ignoring certain practical barriers, "anyone" can do this, it remains true that only so many people can do it, because there is only so much wealth to go around, and it is seriously maldistributed. There are only so many of any given type of job that needs doing, and so only so many can take advantage of an education aimed at doing that job. Multiply that by the number of good jobs total -- which is shrinking all the time -- and you have the limit of how many people can significantly better themselves in the economy as it exists today. If everyone made use of those opportunities, most of them would have wasted their money and time.

I refer you once more to Jefferson's suggestion of a graduated property tax, and of laws of inheritance requiring that estates be divided rather than concentrating, and his suggestion that idle land be given to the unemployed to farm if a problem of that nature developed. He was concerned with inequality -- in the ordinary, straightforward sense -- and not merely with some theoretical value that those who like inequality but feel guilty about that can address and tell themselves they've solve the problem.

The problem with the inequity in the division of wealth is not that so many are poor but that so many are wealthy. The ceiling just keeps rising here. The floor stays where it is.

Actually, the class that is shrinking is neither the poor nor the rich, but the middle class. And whether "the floor stays where it is" depends on how you define "the floor." Obviously an unemployed homeless person is on the floor, but how about a minimum-wage worker who can afford to get by, but just barely? Whether that, too, is "on the floor" is a matter of definition and line-drawing, not objective fact. It is an objective fact, though, that the percentage of the people who are just getting by is growing. And it is a reasonable evaluation that this is a problem.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

because there is only so much wealth to go around, .

of course thats perfectly idiotic and so perfectly liberal. Per capita GDP is 1000 times what was 200 years ago and rising faster now than ever before. Do liberals know anything at all?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He was concerned with inequality -- in the ordinary, straightforward sense

again, so idiotic and so perfectly liberal. Jefferson was concerned with
inequality caused by government. He formed the Republican Party to fight against crony capitalist government induced inequality.

If there was an initiative during his 2 terms for an inheritance tax or redistribution lets see it, liberal.

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
Address, 1805.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It doesn't matter what it reflects to YOU. Because it doesn't reflect Thomas Jefferson's beliefs. Most of it was not said by Thomas Jefferson, who was a liberal, not a conservative.

so if Jefferson did not form the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for very very limited government what did he form it for and fight for all his life?

Here is your very very limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

Why not answer the question rather than try to change the subject???????????????????????
if Jefferson did not form the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for very very limited government what did he form it for and fight for all his life?[/QUOTE]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations.

Of course thats even more perfectly idiotic and liberal than usual.
Show us something in the Constitution that our founders wrote that regulates corporations as you describe???

They did of course know and read Adam Smith!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

Does this somehow mean that Jefferson was not a Republican conservative opposed to big liberal government?

 

[code1211]

Jefferson would be pleased that anyone, ANYONE, can rise in this society regardless of Gender, class, national origin or anything else. Anyone, ANYONE, can gain an education and take advantage of all that society offers.

That is untrue, and therefore he would not. And besides, note that there is a marked difference in meaning between the words "anyone" and "everyone." Even if, theoretically, and ignoring certain practical barriers, "anyone" can do this, it remains true that only so many people can do it, because there is only so much wealth to go around, and it is seriously maldistributed. There are only so many of any given type of job that needs doing, and so only so many can take advantage of an education aimed at doing that job. Multiply that by the number of good jobs total -- which is shrinking all the time -- and you have the limit of how many people can significantly better themselves in the economy as it exists today. If everyone made use of those opportunities, most of them would have wasted their money and time.

I refer you once more to Jefferson's suggestion of a graduated property tax, and of laws of inheritance requiring that estates be divided rather than concentrating, and his suggestion that idle land be given to the unemployed to farm if a problem of that nature developed. He was concerned with inequality -- in the ordinary, straightforward sense -- and not merely with some theoretical value that those who like inequality but feel guilty about that can address and tell themselves they've solve the problem.

The problem with the inequity in the division of wealth is not that so many are poor but that so many are wealthy. The ceiling just keeps rising here. The floor stays where it is.

Actually, the class that is shrinking is neither the poor nor the rich, but the middle class. And whether "the floor stays where it is" depends on how you define "the floor." Obviously an unemployed homeless person is on the floor, but how about a minimum-wage worker who can afford to get by, but just barely? Whether that, too, is "on the floor" is a matter of definition and line-drawing, not objective fact. It is an objective fact, though, that the percentage of the people who are just getting by is growing. And it is a reasonable evaluation that this is a problem.

You are a pessimist and I am not. I know for a fact that every day is a new beginning and I am lucky to be alive because things always can get better and they usually do.

You do not share this point of view. You are sure that the world is cruel and all around you are conniving and deceitful, bent on taking from you what shrinking lot you once thought might fall to you. You are sure that all opportunities are shrinking and that all that was good is somehow less than it was and there are powerful forces keeping you from happiness.

You're a Liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're a Liberal.

yes exactly, the liberal really does know that wealth has exploded exponentially for everyone over the last 100 years.

The liberal pretends otherwise- out of laziness, fear, insecurity, and incompetence- so as to free himself from the burden of participating in the creation of his own wealth and the creation of society's wealth.

It is so much easier to use liberal government to steal wealth for him, at the point of a gun.