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."

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't hate Jefferson, just see through the pretenses about him spread by decades of Left-wing University professors in a bizarre alliance with the defenders of slavery. Jefferson was a tragic figure to me, a man whose lifestyle was based upon things he professed to hate.

You can not refute one FACT about Jefferson I state and I always state facts.

Hamilton was so much a lover of freedom that he spent 5 years at Washington's side fighting the War, created the institutions which allowed the nation to rise to the rank of the World's greatest super power. (In sharp contrast to Jefferson's crimped, limited and contradictory world view.)
Continuously communicated his ideas to the People throughout 30 years of newspaper articles. HE understood that true freedom required the means to protect it, a strong government. HE gave up the great fortune America's greatest lawyer would have earned to secure the foundations of freedom. HE put his ideas up front and never deviated from them even while trying to maintain a constitution he doubted would ever succeed. NO man understood the constitution better than Hamilton not Marshall, not Madison. NO man did more to call for its writing, have it ratified and have it implemented. Jefferson appears not to have understood it at all from everything I have seen.

Only those who know nothing of Hamilton's life and ideas can swallow the absolute and total LIE that he did not love freedom. HE understood what it would require and fought with all his being to create those requirements. In fact, he laid down his life at the hands of the greatest proto-RAT of all, Burr, a man who would be right at home in Chicago's RAT machine today.

"Big" government in Hamilton's day was trivial in size so there was nothing to resist. The conflict was over A government and NO government and Hamilton (and Washington) made the correct choice. Jefferson was on the wrong side.

[GOPcapitalist]

And subsquently labeled a communist and anti-American if one were to gather from the tone of Free Republic lately.

If the comments that have been already posted on this thread are indicators of anything, you are correct. We've already seen him labelled a limo liberal by a guy who also happens to think that Alexander "I love monarchs, taxes, big spending, and federal banks" Hamilton is a model conservative. It goes to show exactly how backwards many of these people are in their thought.

[GOPcapitalist]

HE understood that true freedom required the means to protect it, a strong government.

And that was Hamilton's greatest flaw. When the appointed protector of freedom is strong, who protects us from the protector. The problem is that government, including even its best designs, is naturally inclined toward tyranny. If you give it the means of power, sooner or later it will use them.

[Tribune7]

I'd say that both were very great men.

[Protagoras]

We disagree about things and I have read plenty on the subject as well. I have no intention however of engaging in dueling books or a debate on the subject. Say what you want about that, I'm guessing the insults will fly now. Oh well.

[Protagoras]

One of the founders (at least) advocated a monarchy here in America and suggested Washington as the first king. Was Hamilton one of them?

[GOPcapitalist]

You are a well known Jefferson hater.

Indeed he is, as is his cheerleader Grand Old Partisan. Sadly the two of them have all but completely hijacked this otherwise interesting thread to use for their own anti-Jefferson vitriol while simultaneously trying to convince us that the tax and spend economic interventionist politics of Alexander Hamilton were "conservative."

If you point any it out to them that taxes and economic meddling are anything but, they retreat to the excuse that Hamilton's policies were small compared to today. But by that exact same standard, even the New Deal could be spun as "conservative" compared to what we have now.

[GOPcapitalist]

I don't recall if Hamilton explicitly advocated Washington for king, but there was indeed a point where he advocated what was essentially monarchy at the Constitutional Convention.

[mrsmith]

"The conflict was over A government and NO government and Hamilton Madison (and Washington) made the correct choice. "
Let's not give Hamilton TOO much credit.

Yeah, Hamilton's contribution is underrated and Jefferson's overrated- that is neither of their own faults. It is the fault of historians who overrate democracy.

We are better off both for being more democratic than Hamilton wanted, and for being less democratic than Jefferson wanted.

[Protagoras]

Sounds reasonable. (something rare on these threads)

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have not insulted anyone. But the facts can be quite insulting to some. I am happy to have facts about Jefferson, Hamilton or anyone else brought up.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton's concept of government was definitely based upon checks and balances. His admiration for the English system was precisely because of its checks and balances which allowed Liberty. Liberty was the result of a system. It could not be created without creating the system to maintain it. This was why he loathed "empirics" who just devided nice-sounding but impractical schemes.

[Young Werther]

Not only his writings but his inventions. In William Friedman's "The History of the Use of Codes", (Freidman was the cryptographer who broke the Japanese diplomatic code before WWII), he recounts the story of a WWI Army officer who was doing some research in the Library of Congress on Thomas Jefferson. He, reportedly, was stunned when he came across Jefferson's coding device that Jefferson had invented while Sec of State. The Army officer was amazed that Jefferson had used a device 100 years before the Army had supposedly designed a similar device for use in WWI.

Of course, we all know that Jefferson is considered the father of modern archeology?

How about his invention of the duplicating device that allowed him to make copies of his letters so that he could CC friends and maintain one for file, and all without toner or carbon paper!

Yeah, quite a guy! I guess that's why many consider him one of the past millenia's Renaissance Men!

[Protagoras]

I have not insulted anyone

Never said you did, merely specualted that you would. I have seen the predictable insult that follows when one person says they don't want to get into a long drawn out debate which will change no one's mind.

It usually goes something like this, "oh, retreating because you have no facts".

Anyway, carry on, time to go home.

[GOPcapitalist]

Hamilton's concept of government was definitely based upon checks and balances.

And unfortunately they were too few and far between. Checks and balances only work when (1) they are many and (2) they are permitted to both exist and continue their existence. Out of calls for expediency the check inherent to state federalism has been all but entirely overrun by federal power.

His admiration for the English system was precisely because of its checks and balances which allowed Liberty. Liberty was the result of a system.

Evidently not, seeing as the revolution itself was against that very same system's real world operation in the colonies.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton had no belief that a monocracy was possible in America. He was not a "monocrat" as J claimed. In fact, he pushed for a democratization of the elections to the House during the Constitutional Convention and earlier. His earliest writing show no arguments for monarchy nor do any of his others. I don't think he ever argued theoretically against monarchy, I will admit, but that doesn't make him a Royalist. His main concern with governmental form was "does it work?"

Even his greatest enemies do not claim that Hamilton was duplicitous. His greatest failing was his strident advocacy of what he believed and he wrote hundreds, if not thousands, of articles stating exactly what he believed. None of them show he wanted a monarchy. Statements wrt Washington are not necessarily a reflection of his true political philosophy.

Hamilton was a consistent Republican throughout his life and no man did more to establish this Republic than Alexander Hamilton. At almost any time after his introduction to public life, Hamilton could have joined the English and received great rewards for it. Why didn't he if he were the "monocrat" Jefferson claimed he was?

[Gianni]

The longer the Hamiltonian program had a chance to build capitalism...

Interventionalism... build into the very fabric of our country (and anyone who says otherwise will be labeled 'weak, treasonous, etc').

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is hardly possible to give Hamilton too much credit, actually. Madison turned against Washington and Hamilton after Hamilton started laying down the administration's program. Prior to that he was a great creator of Freedom. His best work was done with Hamilton generating the convention and creating the Constitution. However, after that it was (due most likely to the influence of Jefferson) a lesser Madison we see.

What man who truly understood and supported the constitution could have had anything to do with authoring the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions? They called for the destruction of the Law of the Land.

Hamilton was a strident advocate for representative government NOT democracy. I do not believe we would be much the worse off, if any, from adhering to H's concept of government which was explained quite clearly in the Federalist. It was shared, at that time, by Madison. He changed not Hamilton.

We have the democracy which Jefferson's philosophy called for, it is, indeed, Jefferson's legacy. Actually, it is quite laughable to have Jefferson held up as some advocate for democracy when his state was one of the least representative of all. Perhaps 2% of the population was eligible to vote. New York had a much more extensive electorate as did most of the states which opposed Jefferson.

[justshutupandtakeit]

State abuses, particularly after the Civil War, provoked the concentration of more power in the federal government. The forteenth amendment would never have been ratified or necessary had the slaver not gone on a campaign of terror against the former slaves. Gigantic conflicts with international terror organizations (such as the USSR and the Nazis) provoked much more centralization.

The Revolution took place because the colonies were outside the system of checks and balances. England's government was not prepared to incorporate colonies into its system and tried to rule the Colonists differently than it ruled Englishmen.

Americans were calling for the recognition of their rights as Englishmen, initially, nothing more. Only with the persistent denial of those rights did they revolt. English governance of America was thoughtless, ad hoc and virtually random with no understanding of the protocol of colonization or the mentality of the people it was dealing with.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I never personally insult anyone first. Don't deny I return them with relish though.