Jefferson's Writings Reflect Timeless Wisdom

www.countypressonline.com ^ | 07/03/2003 | By Ron Pritsch

[Tribune7]

On July 4, Americans everywhere will, at some point, have an opportunity to hear the words of the Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson.

It is, without doubt, his best-known work. Jefferson, however, wrote volumes during his life and, not surprisingly, had many things to say concerning a myriad of subjects. He was, after all, a firm believer in "free speech and free press" and he often said precisely what was on his mind.

The following is a small sampling of quotations by Jefferson, which reflect his timeless wisdom on a variety of subjects. Small wonder that he became known as the "Man of the People" and the "Sage of Monticello."

"Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done if we are always doing."

Letter to his daughter Martha, May 5, 1787: "...Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787: "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."

[Gianni]

Oddly, the labor market is one of the more interesting aspects of the WBTS that receives little attention here at FR. Of couse, this is a political website, so I suppose it makes sense that people would dwell on those aspects.

It is fair to say that slavery was an inhibitor to capitalist economic development in the South, but not necessarily for the reasons stated. The removal of incentive for achievement for more than a third of the Southern population would have slowed economic development considerably (imo).

Labor is a commodity item, as much as we all hate to admit it. Putting aside the moral abomination, slavery would best be described as purchased labor vs labor for hire. In the latter, there is incentive for achievement (entrepenuership) on the part of the laboror, and incentive for retention of labor on the part of employers. These are missing from the slave economy, as the preclusion of betterment for the slave inhibits his willingness to achieve.

I'll readily admit that I haven't looked at this very carefully (if someone can recommend any good resources, let 'em fly), but an interesting study would be comparison of the working conditions North vs. South prior to the war. While the North operated on a market-labor principle, the influx of immigrant labor (read: disposable laborers) had caused working conditions to deteriorate significantly for unskilled workers - who comprised the bulk of the Northern workforce. Employers had no need to insure worker safety or satisfaction because for every factory worker who collapsed, there were ten more waiting to fill his place.

The influx of freed slaves into an economy that already had a surplus of labor did not aid in improving worker conditions, and the results of further expansion of an already oversupplied labor force meant continued hardship for those rail workers on the Western frontier. Now that I think about it, it's not obvious to me when the turnaround in labor supply occurred to bring about better working conditions, or what event triggered it.

[Non-Sequitur]

if someone can recommend any good resources, let 'em fly

"The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South" by Eugene D. Genovese. Genovese is a self-declared socialist but you don't have to agree with him. There is still a lot of statistical information included in the book that may allow you to flesh out your theory.

[GOPcapitalist]

Here you toss away any claim that people should take you seriously. Price levels are far more stable now than they were in the 19th century, when prices fell as much as they rose. It would be stupid for a modern economy to allow its money supply to be determined by the vagaries of gold mining output.

Price levels in the 19th century fluctuated thanks to Al Hamilton's heirs screwing around with the nation's monetary policy. As for gold, I once again invite you to look up the current value of .95 ounces of that material today. For comparison, in the 1850's it was minted into and used as a face value coin of $20.

In the modern age, when most money consists of entries in computer databases, there is no way lumps of metal could be the basis for economic transactions.

Sure there is. Physical commodities of value are traded electronically all the time, often with their owners never even seeing or holding them. Have you ever heard of taking out futures? When you buy oil futures do they physically deliver a load of crude oil barrels on your front lawn for you to sell at a different time? Or do they process the thing electronically and sell it on the market where, pending the success of your investment, you gain from it.

In economics, you get an F.

Not at all, though I could easily assign you that grade in principles of capitalism. I suppose what you peddle could be called "economics," but it certainly isn't the capitalist kind.

[GOPcapitalist]

As for the use of force, the rebels started the Civil War and the patriots finished it.

The causal reasoning you imply in that assertion is an illogical nightmare. The latter is not a necessary consequence of the former, thus your position is a non-sequitur.

[Temple Owl]

I'd say that both were very great men.

On this, America's birthday, I thank God, that we had them and John Adams and Ben Franklin and the rest of young America's statesmen to start us off on the right foot.

Franklin was once asked what kind of government we had. He answered, "A Republic, if we can keep it." Dialogues such as this one on the FreeRepublic help a lot.

[Tribune7]

On this, America's birthday, I thank God, that we had them and John Adams and Ben Franklin and the rest of young America's statesmen to start us off on the right foot.

worth repeating

[Gianni]

Thanks, bud. I'll dig around a little and hopefully come up with a copy.

BTW, Happy Independence day! Enjoy the weekend.

[GOPcapitalist]

Alexander Hamilton nearly single-handedly established the American economy.

That you believe economies must be "established" by government policy and do not arise out of the natural free market interaction of goods is indicative that you are neither a capitalist nor a conservative. That is fine if you desire to believe those positions. I certainly can't stop you. But please do not present yourself as a conservative if you are going to advocate the interventionist economic policies you espouse here and elsewhere on this forum.

The vast expansion of the federal government was the product of Democrat policies of the 1930s and 1960s, long after Hamilton -- and Lincoln -- were dead.

Those vast expansions could not have occurred as easily as they did had it not been for the precedents of Lincoln and the consolidation of power in the presidency that his administration brought.

[AdamSelene235]

At least 95% of those who kicked Saddam's ass are graduates of the public schools. How could that be?

Because government schools excel in teaching people to kill people and break things? ?

[billbears]

Alexander Hamilton nearly single-handedly established the American economy. The vast expansion of the federal government was the product of Democrat policies of the 1930s and 1960s, long after Hamilton -- and Lincoln -- were dead

And every one of those policies that the general government instituted were based either on Clay's American System (which came from Hamilton) or lincoln's absolute disregard for the Constitution when it suited his needs. I know this is going to come as a shock to you but politicians' actions do have far reaching consequences over generations

[justshutupandtakeit]

Don't make dumb sounding comments unless you want people to think you are dumb. I know you aren't that stupid so I see no reason to make such a stupid remark unless you are trying to get a rise out of me.

Normally I would bite but am not in the mood to quibble over such nonsense even if there were such a thing as a "government" school other than those for Defense dept. personel and families.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Markets are only self regulating when the assumptions which underlie the model of Perfect Competition are present. I hate to shock you with the information that those assumptions are regularly violated and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.

The only use of the word "weak" in that post was describing Jefferson's understanding of the constitution you expanded that application to distort my remarks. I never even mentioned treason in that post.

You should have read the post better, perhaps you are arguing with some else.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Though, of course, I never said anything similiar to the false remark you attribute to me, it is typical of the distortions you and your allies are forced to resort to in vain attempts to refute the truths I spread for you.

National survival is at times very much the result of the ability to mount sufficient force to destroy the threats which face it on occasion. Hamilton's ideas' superiority was clearly shown by the growth of industry in the North which powered the crushing of the Slavers' Rebellion.

Naturally, your Sophistic (though not sophisticated) attempt to distort my statements is an ineffectual attempt to deal with the realities they raise.

What is especially gratifying about Hamilton is the enemies he generates. Should those who hate him (and much of the rest of America) not hate him I would question his greatness.

[AdamSelene235]

Don't make dumb sounding comments

Your assertion was that our soldier's effectiveness is the result of the government's school system.

Hey, I know. Instead of SAT's let's evaluate students by their ability to make 800 m headshots with a .308.

I was merely pointing out your shameless attempt to channel nationalism into mindless support for the government's education monopoly.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Actually, Hamilton initially was going to be a doctor. But the Revolutionary movement changed that.

He was, however, responsible for the most effective treatment of Yellow Fever which was used by his boyhood friend, Dr. Edward Stevens, to save his life and those of many others from the epidemics which hit Philadelphia every summer. Rather than used the ice baths Hamilton suggested, America's foremost physician, Benjamin Rush, was bleeding them to death.

Hamilton was every bit as great a physician as Economist/Nation Builder. A great man in many areas.

[GOPcapitalist]

National survival is at times very much the result of the ability to mount sufficient force to destroy the threats which face it on occasion.

Do you mean to say that the north's survival was threatened by the south's departure? If so, please elaborate in what way.

Hamilton's ideas' superiority was clearly shown by the growth of industry in the North which powered the crushing of the Slavers' Rebellion.

Why is wealth-by-industry necessarily superior to wealth-by-agriculture? In fact, dollar ammounts and national exports indicate that southern agricultural production achieved superior wealth to northern industry as of 1860 when 75% of the entire nation's exports came from the south. Now, if you mean to say that industry is better than agriculture at supplying the goods for waring upon one's neighbors, then I will agree with you. But that only takes us back to the very same thing you just claimed that you never said - the assertion that ability in and exercise of force determines right. But isn't that always what the civil war comes down to for the northern side?

[GOPcapitalist]

Markets are only self regulating when the assumptions which underlie the model of Perfect Competition are present. I hate to shock you with the information that those assumptions are regularly violated and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.

And I hate to shock you, but the closest examples of perfect competition possible are in the agrarian economies. As another shock for you, it is a fact of history that the greatest and most frequent violators of perfect competition, and capitalist markets in general, are government interventionists.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Millions of America students get good educations from their public schools IF THEY WANT ONE. America's soldiers are overwhelmingly from the public schools which puts the lie to their enemies which happily (for ideological reasons) claim they are total failures.

Jefferson was as great a man as a manipulative, hypocrit could be. It was not his fault he was unable to rise above the Evil social system he helped grow to great power. He was one of our most overrated presidents and did almost nothing of worth during the Revolution. Lincoln was, at least, our second greatest president. There is no doubt of that, no matter if there is a concentrated campaign to Lie and distort his work here on Free Republic.

Public schools are doing a decent job given the severe constraints they are operating under. The main problem facing them in the big cities is being inundated by a wave of vicious bastards from the Welfare classes. In schools where these children are not a significant proportion of the students (such as in the suburban schools) excellent educations are available.

Left-wing propaganda and the teachers Unions are huge negatives and must be dealt with but to pretend that public schooling could be eliminated is just ideological fanaticism.

I think the disdain for the public schools is, in general, in inverse proportion to the education of the disdainer.

[GOPcapitalist]

Lincoln was, at least, our second greatest president. There is no doubt of that, no matter if there is a concentrated campaign to Lie and distort his work here on Free Republic.

You wouldn't know the truth about Lincoln if it was stapled to your forehead. That is why you turn practically every attempt to discuss him under the light of historical documentation and evidence into a flame war of Hamiltonian evasion, absurd semantics games, and the slothful denial of reality.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Don't paint Hamilton with the brush meant for others. His thinking was far too sophisticated for others to apply at rote (except, perhaps, John Marshall.) This is easily seen by the fair minded since both the Left and Right have attacked programs which apparently flow from his program.

When a former colony which has had its economy distorted and hampered by the mother country wants to industrialize Government intervention is certainly appropriate and violates none of the requirements of free enterprise. Subsidies and incentives are appropriate programs. Even Jefferson Davis understood this when he instituted programs to develop Confederate industries.

Protectionism is never appropriate in mature economies but for National Defense reasons. Protectionism does not reduce incentives in anyway but redirects them. Thus, unprofitable industries become profitable when they can raise their prices due to tariffs. However, Hamilton's tariffs were not protective tariffs but revenue tariffs.

Welfarism's main impact upon Capitalism is that is allows the maintenance of the "Reserve Army of the Unemployed" through a common fund. It raises wage rates by removing some of the labor force. It raises demand by giving the unemployed money to spend. However, it is the outgrowth of the old Democratic big city political machines which at one time funded these handouts themselves. They are still vote-buying instititutions but rather than being funded by graft and extortion are funded by the taxpayers.

There were no Agrarian Free Marketeers who were even close to going toe-to-toe with Hamilton's ideas. NONE. Jefferson and Madison did not claim to be able to and bemoaned the fact that H. was a "host within himself." All his opponents were second-rate (at best) and Jefferson even claimed he was "duped" and did not understand H's program when he allowed it to be adopted in exchange for the capital location. (I say he lied about being "duped.")

H's "prominent" speech was supposed to remain secret. Pretending that that speech overweighed the volumes of writings advocating federalism is dishonest at best. Ignoring the contrary evidence of his republicanism is equally dishonest. There is far more evidence of the country than the latter. This is, sadly, totally consistent with the actions of his opponents, dishonest from the beginning and still so to this day. What is significant is that H fought harder than any American for the adoption of the constitution he NEVER fought against that constitution in order to establish a monarchy NEVER. The Liars Brigade were accusing HIM of undermining the Constitution when that is EXACTLY what THEY were doing. Is that specific enough for you?

Had you studied any American Monetary History you would have discovered that specie had been deliberately drained from the colonies for a century (not merely the result of the War.) This was why colonists used: tobacco, cowerie shells, paper money, animal skins (a Buck) and various other expedients, including barter, in order to allow the economy to limp alone. Hamilton was genius enough to realize that modern capitalism needed a stable money supply, and debt markets and how to create them.

Jefferson's class was essentially the resident managers of English capital's investments. His slaves and plantations were actually owned by the British bankers. He was bankrupt and only floated along by the grace of the bankers. This, of course, was one of the chief reasons he hated Banks, why he fought against any agreements with Great Britain and why he distorted the role of banks. Crops of the planters too often merely paid the interest on their debts. Little, if any, capital was accumulated in the South. That was another of the crucial weaknesses of the Slavers' economy and another reason it was a dead end.

Since we were only talking about the First National Bank there was no need to specify any further. Anyone paying attention knew post Jacksonian times were not under discussion.

I know my economic stats far better than you and no reputable economist claims the Fed CAUSED the Depression. I don't count the crackpots.

The very first money of record was that created by the KING of Lydia, a government. Money is the creation of governments in almost all cases. Barter with unofficial money occasionally occurred when there was no choice (such as in Colonial America.)

Hamiltonian interventionism and federalized monetary policy were crucial elements in the creation of the greatest Capitalistic State in history. Capitalism as it has existed in the actual world are directly the result of those policies. Obscure theorists opinions are of little interest except as examples of error.