Posted on 02/04/2004 12:00:19 PM PST by HenryLeeII
Jefferson opposed ratification of the Constitution. Hamilton argued in favor of it. I am not attacking Jefferson. I am talking to people in the here and now who treat Jefferson as some sort of biblical profit while treating Hamilton as some sort of biblical Satan.
No one here is doing either.. You're hyping the issue.
How in the hell can you say that Jeffersonian philosophy is based on the principles of the Constitution when the Jeffersonians completely opposed the the Constitution?
Because they didn't oppose the constitution. You're uncontrolled ranting doesn't make that comment true..
You make no sense. The Constitution, by definition, is Federalism.
Simply untrue. The constitution, if followed, would control federalism. - Hamiltonians are now in control, and are violating our constitution to remain in control.
You have stated over and over again here that you oppose the Federalist vision for this nation. You can't logically both oppose Federalism and support the Constitution. Or maybe logic has nothing to do with it.
You need help in reading & understanding our constitution. A course in logic might also be in order.
-366- tpaine-
To: Ditto
If you haven't already realized this detail, debating with tpaine is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
B-bobby, that's a totaly unwarrented, off the wall personal attack..
It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
You might note that 'ditto' hadn't even bothered to reply to my rebuttal of his last post.
The gentleman who has, unfortunately, expropriated the name of Tom Paine is on better behavior than usual.
And you're as bizarro as usual. First you compare me with a pig, then call me a better behaved 'gentleman'.. Who's the squealing piggy?
Still, the tendency to tedium in his posts, both my length and content, is quite apparent. John / Billybob 399
Sour grapes john, and you know it. -- A few months ago I posted some critiques of your statist constitutional views, - which you couldn'd defend..
Now you're reduced to making nasty little asides like this to get revenge.. How petty..
Feel free to rebut any of my positions I've posted on the Jeff/Hamiltion debate..
If you have any more piggy comments about me, post them in the backroom
The states created the Constitution, first by calling the Constitutional Convention, and then by ratifying it. In same manner, the states had created the Articles of Confederation, first by causing it to be written by their representatives in Congress, and then by ratifying it.
In neither instance did the federal government "give" anything to the states. Instead, the devolution was the other way around, from the states to the federal government. Any competent student of American government knows this.
I have accepted the fact that I will be opposed by people who firmly believe false conclusions about the history of the US and its Constitution. You are, of course, on that list.
Have a nice day.
John / Billybob
“Linked?” What are you suggesting – that Mr. Jefferson was ‘guilty by association?’ But thank you for proving my point, no matter what ridiculous substitute for reasoning you employed…
;>)
Only the Supreme Court has "...judicial Power...[which] extend[s} to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this constitution, the Laws of the United States,..."
Back to your ‘straw man’ argument, I see. As I noted last week:
Another ‘straw man’ argument from queenhillaryscourtjester! No one has suggested that the federal courts did not possess the right of “judicial review.” Historical documentation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, however, that such “review” was not considered to be either ‘exclusive’ or ‘final.’ According to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and others, the States retained the right to determine, “in the last resort,” what was constitutional.
(Of course, “historical documentation” tends to contradict your wild-@ss opinions... which is no doubt why you refer to Thomas Jefferson as “scum,” and James Madison as a ‘traitor’...;>)
Your ‘straw man’ is no more impressive now than it was then...
;>)
I suppose the Founders just forgot to add "as does Who is John Galt?"
Actually, you’re wrong again (no big surprise! ;>). As the man you call “scum” once observed:
"It is every American’s right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself."
Thomas Jefferson
There could be no insult in having YOU proclaim me a "complete idiot" that is the highest of praise.
LOL! Given the consistent ‘disconnect’ between your opinions and documented historical fact, you may expect additional “praise” in the future…
There is a rule against dragging in posts from other threads trying to embarass a poster on unrelated threads.
The “rule” actually states that “it's considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread.” The threads I was quoting from related to constitutional issues in general, and Mr. Jefferson & Mr. Hamilton in particular. In short, the threads were definitely ‘related’ – and my post violated no ‘rule’...
;>)
Of course, I prefer to allow your putrid and deceptive contributions to lay where they will.
I can substantiate my “contributions” – you, of course, can not. You claimed, for example, that the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by every other State. In reality, numerous other States reaffirmed those resolutions over a period spanning at least six decades – as I proved using quotations from State documents. In short, it was your claim that was “deceptive” (actually, completely wrong ;>).
As for “putrid” - your claim that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were "treasonous" would be exceedingly difficult to surpass in terms of ‘putridity’...
;>)
I never try to intimidate anyone nor do I gratuitously insult those first who I am sparring with.
LOL! Oh, sure! One thing I like about you, sport - I don’t even have to ‘break a sweat’ proving you wrong:
The only fading is from fringe one-issue types holed up in their basements dreading the world who probably didn't support him to begin with. Those who are so foolish as to consider cutting off their noses to spit their faces rarely make a difference in anything.
22 posted on 02/09/2004 9:36:17 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
“Fringe one-issue types holed up in their basements?” (Should I post a few of the replies from those you ‘gratuitously insulted?’ ;>) As usual, your own words prove you wrong. Congratulations!
Returning such heartfelt compliments as yours is always a pleasure though.
LOL! It's "a pleasure" I enjoy more often than you: for example, I definitely enjoyed demonstrating that it is your posts that are "deceptive" and "putrid"...
;>)
To which of my posts are you referring? Your tirade is irrelevant.
;>)
All of which are DOCUMENTED HISTORICAL FACTS!
Then feel free to 'document' your claims, sport. Your opinions are not evidence...
He was more a progenitor of Dems, than of Conservatives and Republicans.
Really? You made the claim - feel free to prove it...
;>)
_____________________________________
You may not "believe in the right of succession," but the Framers of the Constitution certainly did. Most of them, in their personal writings, confirmed that states could leave the union as freely as they had entered under both the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution.
The leaders of the Confederacy were correct, philosophically, on the issue of succession, and quoted the Framers at length to prove their point. Of course, there is no more solid way to lose a political debate than to lose a war over the precise issue. So, after Lee handed Grant his sword at Appomatox Courthouse, no state had any right to leave the union. Congressman Billybob 397
______________________________________
Hirn_man makes some valid constitutional points above, and typical of b-bobby we see see you brush them off with inane opinions..
Does this 'style' of debate work in the courtroom for you?
I think not, although it may explain why you want to become a politician. 402 tpaine
______________________________________
You, sir, are a constitutional and historical moron.
Not in evidence, B-bob. --- You play these personal attack ploys when you can't answer to the facts.
The states created the Constitution, first by calling the Constitutional Convention, and then by ratifying it.
The 'people' of the states. The state has no inherant authority, as you well know. Or should, being a "constitutional lawyer" as you tout yourself..
In same manner, the states had created the Articles of Confederation, first by causing it to be written by their representatives in Congress, and then by ratifying it.
In neither instance did the federal government "give" anything to the states.
How lame, - no one here has claimed the states were "given" anything by the feds.. Straw man.
Instead, the devolution was the other way around, from the states to the federal government. Any competent student of American government knows this.
Ahh yess, you established your straw man, now its the old 'everyone knows'.. -- Pitiful ploy, B-bobby..
I have accepted the fact that I will be opposed by people who firmly believe false conclusions about the history of the US and its Constitution. You are, of course, on that list. Have a nice day. John / Billybob 405
Poor little Billy, opposed by all in his fight for the right of the state to ignore our BOR's..
In neither instance did the federal government "give" anything to the states. Instead, the devolution was the other way around, from the states to the federal government. Any competent student of American government knows this.
BUMP!
;>)
One problem is that "anti-statism" may mean opposition to the government as such or opposition to the expansion of state power. But at what point does the power of government become objectionable? Thus, a supporter might see Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater as "anti-statist" or "against statism" while a critic might deny them that label because of the degree of government they do support. This is hardly my confusion. It's one that many who have visited "anti-statist" websites experience. Some who long thought themselves "anti-statist" in Goldwater's sense, may have recoiled at what they were asked to accept under that label.
Similarly, the question of just what "conservatism" is in itself, separate from the conservatism of this or that epoch is a hard one to answer. I don't say that Buckley and Goldwater were wrong in thinking themselves conservative, just that their definitions didn't exhaust the meaning of the word or possible examples of its use. Under other circumstances their program would have been quite radical indeed.
What is conservatism in the absence of a considerable socialist or social democratic or communist movement? What was "conservative" before such left alternatives were developed, and what will be "conservative" if such ideologies lose their appeal? Or if such an appeal will never entirely die, what happens when one set of ideological landmarks vanishes over the horizon and we are confronted with a new landscape. I don't know the answers, but there's a kind of madness in understanding all of the past entirely in light of present conflicts. The conflicts that divide societies and the visions that political thinkers and actors pursue change over time.
In some quarters there's always a lot of enthusiasm for lost causes, vanquished rebellions, and vanished civilizations. The idea seems to be that if things went differently we would be freer or happier or better. But such nostalgia needs to be subjected to the same scrutiny as any form of utopianism or romanticism. Lost causes and their possible consequences shouldn't escape the skeptical analysis that "won causes" receive.
You might want to take a look at early 20th century conservative Irving Babbitt's remarks on Jefferson and Lincoln. His conclusions are the opposite of today's neoconfederates -- Jefferson is condemned for his utopianism, and Lincoln is praised for his support for law, union, and continuity. I don't say Babbitt was right, but his skepticism about Jefferson's Rousseauvianism was very definitely conservative, and he does seem to have made an attempt to see the consequences of both men's ideas.
I am certainly not a Hamiltonian. There's too much in Hamiltonianism that's reminiscent of early modern European centralist schemes and too much that reminds people of modern liberal projects and programs. But it would serve us well to remember the conservative aspects of Federalism, and the radical side of Jeffersonianism. No country or party can survive and prosper if it commits itself to being 100% Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian.
But you try to hard too acquit Jefferson. The excesses of the French Revolution did not turn him against the Revolution. Rather he grew more radical in his defense of that Revolution. He never advocated a French-style upheaval in America -- we didn't need it, having been spared feudalism and absolutism -- but he didn't abandon the French Revolutionary cause while that Revolution was in progress.
A quarter century later, Jefferson did admit to Adams that he had been wrong about France's Revolution, but at that point even the French had rejected revolution. For Jefferson to say that France ought to just pick up where it left off in 1789, was a bit like a long-time Communist admitting in 1989 or 1991 that the October Revolution had been a mistake. It was a recognition of the practical failure of the movement, not a repudiation of its goals or means.
To say that the other kids with their long enthusiasms for the Russian Revolution "got off" while only our Tom with his temporary flirtation with radicalism is made to pay for his youthful indiscretions is special pleading: if Tom weren't your kid, he'd look a lot more like the other boys who never wanted to understand and admit the horrors of the revolutions they'd loved. Since he is yours, you want to let him off easier than he deserves.
Your idea that the Federalist were "taskmasters" in a way that Jeffersonian Republicans weren't doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. A lot of the efforts to interpret American politics along narrow class lines have failed: too much is unaccounted for, rich men and poor men stood on both sides of the party lines. More to the point, prominent Republicans like Jefferson and Madison were "taskmasters" themselves in so far as they were slaveowners.
The idea that one can escape regimentation and control by embracing slavery may make sense to you, but for moral reasons such a policy is condemned. And rightly so, given how societies that adopt the maxim "greater freedom for us through enslavement of others" behave. It might strike some as a fine thing to be a master and have slaves, but the idea that slavery could truly be a path to greater freedom or a stable or just society is unlikely.
And workers in factories and stores generally had the right to find new employers, a right denied to slaves. The sturdy yeoman himself might well find himself in the position of a stern taskmaster for his wife and children, and increasingly, as the country grew more settled, for hired help. Or, losing his land, he might find himself forced to seek one of his former peers as taskmaster and employer.
You seem to presume that there is some absolute freedom attainable and maintainable. Maybe that was true for the first explorers, hunters, and farmers, but as civilization progresses that freedom is inevitably lost. The development of cities and industries is as much a response to that loss as the cause of it.
The old schema that make Jeffersonians and Jacksonians the party of liberty has been called into question because of the Democrats stronger support for slavery and territorial expansion. It's entirely justified that someone concerned about slavery or sabre-rattling might have found his way into the Whig or Republican parties. And someone who feared or abhorred Jefferson's support for French radicalism and deism or Jackson's unruly democracy or the rickety finances of Democratic state governments might well find his way to the Federalists or Whigs. No apologies are necessary. They made rational, and often a moral choices, and their choices, the reasons behind them and the consequences that grew out of them were at least as beneficial as those of Jeffersonian Democrats.
You may want to make the case that such Americans doomed the agrarian paradise. But it was not a paradise, and was doomed by increasing population, foreign competition, national defense needs, and falling commodities prices. And you might give a thought to what was prevented or removed by America's increasing industrialization -- the prospect of a society based on radical forms of subjugation and unfreedom.
The conclusion that I draw from our history -- and it's clearer now than was ever the case before -- is that "good guys" and "bad guys" aren't always so distinguishable. One can't point to some party that had all the right ideas and was composed entirely of good people. I'd think the rebelists would be contented with the fact that one can't put all the good on the Northern side and all the evil on the Southern side. Instead they keep trying to prove that the opposite caricature was true, a conclusion that just won't stand up in court.
Well, we've had this discussion before, and it doesn't seem to lead anywhere. A lot of the controversy has to do with whether there is one key value that needs to be maximized above all else, or whether there are many different desireable values that have to be balanced against each other. But if you do want to absolutize that one value, you have to seriously consider its different meanings, how they stack up against each other, and just how possible it is to maximize conflicting definitions of the same value. You might take a look at David Fischer's discussion of various American ideas of freedom in Albion's Seed before your thinking hardens into a bizarre Shigalevist embrace of slavery as a means to true freedom. Alongside anarchic ideas of absolute freedom, there is the idea of freedom in society. Chasing the will of the wisp of the former, may mean dangerously neglecting the latter.
O'Brien does try too hard to hang Jefferson. The Oklahoma City Bombing seems to have released a lot of passions in him that it would have been better to keep in check. Six years after it was written, O'Brien's article already has a dated feel......it certainly looks like Jefferson never expressed such great enthusiasm for the Jacobins again. But you try to hard too acquit Jefferson. The excesses of the French Revolution did not turn him against the Revolution. Rather he grew more radical in his defense of that Revolution.
Point one, I'm glad you noticed O'Brien's overdoing it. His tendentiousness jumped out at me, and it was so noticeable that I was amazed at his brashness, retailing his Jefferson-bashing in both liberal and conservative magazines and tailoring his argument for his readership in both cases. Apparently, others noticed, too, and judging by his lack of a second, discounted his philippic.
But now Jefferson is under attack from a quarter O'Brien predicted, to-wit, quietly racist blacks who want white names taken off their schools (never mind that they were built by somebody else), beginning with Confederates and extending to anyone who ever owned a slave. I drove by a big new school, a middle school, in Missouri City Saturday -- named for Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP pleader and political appointee to the Supreme Court. The Balkanization continues apace, and eventually it will threaten the faces on Mount Rushmore. I don't know how much O'Brien has had to do with it (he wrote his articles and book spearing Jefferson almost eight years ago now -- how time flies!), even among his liberal readers. I don't detect much influence (correct me) among conservatives, except maybe for the few Declarationists who follow Harry Jaffa in extolling Hamiltonianism and Lincolnism (to me, the two are organically related), who would be extolling and controverting regardless of anything O'Brien had said. I contingently include you in this group.
My point in defending Jefferson is that there has been a consensus for liberty in America, which Jack Kennedy referred to when he gently rebuked his assembled prima donnas as they sat at dinner in the White House. However, in respect of the wider trends that the article points out which you helpfully linked to, concerning the rising challenge of Confucian values to Western ones, I am very sensitive to the idea that considerations of power and discretion -- the hateful kind of discretion amounting to dominion, exercised in locked rooms by unaccountable men -- may eventually overthrow the ideals of the Enlightenment and return us, as you commented, to the norms of European despotism. If that happens, the American Experiment will have been repudiated if the rest of the world does it and will have failed if we do it. The article's author, a "surrender monkey" if I ever saw one -- Afrikaners called such people hensoppers, which translates to English roughly as "hands-uppers" -- seems to think that we would have to go along to get along, if the rest of the world turned away from American values. So I defend Jefferson, out of felt need: and yes, it is an extended consequentialist argument. Hamilton is too close, I think, to the age of tyrants, and to their apologists like Hobbes, and so I routinely attack his supporters, the better to sustain their freedom to praise him.
[Jefferson] never advocated a French-style upheaval in America -- we didn't need it, having been spared feudalism and absolutism -- but he didn't abandon the French Revolutionary cause while that Revolution was in progress.
Wouldn't it be possible still to be an enthusiast of the Revolution while wishing to minimize the mayhem of the Jacobins?
As for the differences between France and the English-speaking countries in their emergence from feudalism (which England, too, experienced, from 1066 to 1215 and Magna Carta, and beyond), Barbara Tuchman in A Distant Mirror is instructive. She points out that the Jacobin fury fell on the Second Estate mostly because of the nobles' own arrogance and recalcitrance in the centuries following their crushing of the movement for middle-class rights in the 14th century. The English thanes managed to secure grants of rights from the King that later inured to the commons as well; but the French knights crushed any attempt to achieve anything like Magna Carta in France. So France eventually vomited them out, and then fell on them. They thoroughly deserved to be roughly handled as a group; but of course civilized people recognize that one doesn't execute groups, but individuals, and that condemning a person because of group status is unjust and indefensible. Absent any statement by Jefferson to the effect of "kill them all, they're all guilty", I can't join you in assigning him the onus of extremism, or more properly, of bloodthirstiness.
The fundamental division is between Hobbesian enthusiasts of government power, who imagine that they will direct it, or that it will be directed by benign others for benign purposes, and people who do not regard government power -- because of Europe's long experience with it -- as benign or other than as a force of nature, like fire, that needs to be carefully watched and warded.
Citing differences of opinion among anti-statists of varying degree doesn't invalidate the recognition of the more fundamental division, or the appropriateness of the label "anti-statist".
The philosophy espoused by conservatives, or by 19th-century liberals if you will, is grounded on concrete concepts and isn't the kind of rubber suit that pseudophilosophies like "communitarianism" are. The problem with Left political ideas is that they are come-ons, false advertising that cynically and mutably serves the power drives of their manipulators: consider Lenin's sinuous policy-making course toward power, when he and his inner circle used emphasis shifts and changes in policy to peel away layers of designated "non-participants" from the original mass party, until nothing was left of the mass party but a diamond-hard, supremely willful cadre of vanguardists.
I did a search the other night for Babbitt's material and did'nt finish it yet. Still looking. Thanks for the reference.
As you say, we've had this discussion......and just because I live in a city doesn't mean I'm under some moral or teleological injunction to accept a Pendergast machine or a Daley machine, or a gauleiter for that matter. Freedom is not "inevitably lost"; there is no entropy in human affairs that requires us to become slaves when gross domestic product rises to a certain level. You've been reading too much Toynbee.
Making concrete statements about the benefits of freedom doesn't mean one aspires to an "absolute freedom" in your terms, and working to increase and preserve freedom doesn't make one an enemy of material progress.
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
