Chewbarkah, you were correct, I didn't know about Jefferson's 19 year proposal. I'm glad you mentioned it, and I went looking for it. What I found was this: this. There appears to be a larger context with this letter to Madison, which involves a land question. It's not simply about dissolving all government after 19 years. There are a lot of laws which get changed and thrown out on a generational basis, and I think that's a good thing. But here's the difference. Considering Jefferson's view of some firmly set truths revolving around our natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we don't throw out the entire concept of liberty after a mere 19 years. That's what Wilson did want.
To Sherman:
You made the following comment:
"However, I’d also like to point out that there is little in Wilson’s actual words as quoted in the article to object to. Certainly Jefferson would have agreed with them. I’ve just finished an excellent book on the Declaration, and it shows very clearly that the Founders didn’t think of themselves as demigods setting up a permanent form of government for all time. They were well aware that changing circumstances would require modifications to the Constitution, though I’m pretty sure they expected the principles outlined in that darn preamble to the Declaration to be valid forever. (However imperfect they were at implementing those principles themselves.)"
What I bolded is the key. The preamble is exactly what Wilson and his ilk were objecting to, and Jefferson would very much have had a problem with this, because as you said(and I agree) the Founders looked at these to be fundamental truths. The progressives don't look at these as fundamental truths, and want to progress past these inconveniences. This can't go both ways. For people who see value in the preamble, then Wilson's words are highly offensive.
As long as we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, then the progressives cannot rule over us.(but they will keep trying) And while Jefferson had his 19 year proposal, I'm fairly confident he did not mean that after 19 years, liberty ends and let's resume tyranny. Look, maybe I'm wrong, Chewbarka has already established that I don't have all the answers, to which I readily admit.
I share everyone’s opposition to the Progressive Agenda. Since we should always found our case on solid ground, follow the link to Wilson’s Jefferson Club speech. It is clear that his rhetorical intent is to say in effect “let’s keep Jefferson’s high-minded preamble, and create a new list of abuses, injustices, etc., for our time, in the light thereof.” Thus, Wilson is in precise agreement with your emboldened text. Of course he then proposes his twisted version of problems and solutions, incorporating, the Progressive economic critique of the Constitution (that wealthy “haves” created an order to butter their bread and keep the little man down), its social agenda, and its pantheon of pseudo-solutions. His purpose in this speech is not to deny Jefferson’s preamble, but to hijack and harness it, like the rest of us, to the Progressive plough. He even arrogates Mr. Jefferson’s posthumous endorsement of the crime.
I share your contempt for the Progressive Agenda. Since we should always found our case on solid ground, follow the link to Wilson’s Jefferson Club speech. It is clear that his rhetorical intent is to say in effect “let’s keep Jefferson’s high-minded preamble, and create a new list of abuses, injustices, etc., for our time, in the light thereof.” Thus, Wilson is in precise agreement with your emboldened text. Of course he then proposes his twisted version of problems and solutions, incorporating, the Progressive economic critique of the Constitution (that wealthy “haves” created an order to butter their bread and keep the little man down), its social agenda, and its pantheon of pseudo-solutions. His purpose in this speech is not to deny Jefferson’s preamble, but to hijack and harness it to the Progressive plough. He even arrogates Mr. Jefferson’s posthumous endorsement of the crime.