Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: x
'Another equally -- if not more valid -- reading, is that Jefferson is just defending freedom of speech. Notice Jefferson does not say, "If there are any states that wish to secede, let them go." '

"If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Freedom of speech was already guaranteed by the First Amendment. Somehow, I just don't think that when Jefferson states, "dissolve the Union" that he's referring to free speech. Why not just accept the literal meaning?

266 posted on 12/19/2001 2:24:03 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies ]


To: 4ConservativeJustices
But the Alien and Sedition Acts passed under Adams had curtailed the right to free speech. It was an open question in 1801 whether Jefferson would respond in kind and suppress Federalist newspapers or whether he would "let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

I don't see support for secession in his words, just an affirmation that he would uphold the principle of free speech which Adams had violated. After all, he's willing to let not just secessionists but also those who would change the "republican form" of the union stand undisturbed. It would be very hard for them to change the republican form of the union when Jefferson had the Presidency and his party controlled Congress, and if they seriously tried to impose a non-republican regime, Jefferson would surely oppose that. Therefore I presume he's talking about speech, not about an actual act of imposing a non-republican government, which Jefferson would be bound by his principles and the Constitution to oppose. If he speaks of letting those who want secession and what he'd call tyranny or monarchy alone, and if we know he would fight rather than see actual monarchy or tyranny imposed, then it doesn't look like he's making the most rousing endorsement of secession. I don't know what he would have thought of secession at the time, but I do think the sentence is somewhat different in meaning than your interpretation.

Jefferson is an interesting case. He was much more radical than most of the rest of the Founders. And here he is in 1801, an old revolutionary and oppositionist, trying to keep his opponents from rebelling or revolting against his own authority. In time, at the head of a government, with obligations and responsibilities, Jefferson moderated his earlier views in practice, though not always in theory.

276 posted on 12/19/2001 10:18:10 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson