Which was a serious hindrance for us in the Barbary War. Most of our ships were easily bested by the pirates. Jefferson often let his ideals get the better of him, but I don’t think he got lost in them.

Having read his “proclamation” of sorts, Mike Vanderbore seems to think Lincoln was the aggressor in the lead up to the Civil War, so I can only assume that he actually is a Neo-Confederate.

I defend name-calling on the grounds that the works of Mike Vanderbonehead are replete with ad hominem attacks. Or, in a way that M.V. can understand, “Sez u, sez I, sez her, sez him, sez thee, sez thou, sez they, sez them, sez me” ad infinitum.

*Wink, wink*

‘As for Jefferson believing that a generation could set its own laws “as long as that government adhered to the principles of individual liberty. If it didn’t, then that government would be deemed illegitimate”… that’s just nonsense. Did Jefferson view his own administration as illegitimate because it didn’t abolish slavery, though it took the middling step of abolishing the slave trade? How could that be seen as adhering to the principles of individual liberty?’

The slavery issue with regard to Jefferson seems to be a stumbling block to many who completely disregard the Constitution because it was ‘written by a bunch of old white men who believed in slavery.’

The point is moot, because you are attempting to impose a 21st century point of view on an 19th century document. Since most caucasians at the time believed that African slaves did not even possess souls, thus rendering them less than human, they saw no conflict in speaking of liberty while at the same time practicing something we today believe is the epitome of anti-freedom.

But the principle of expanded liberties, as built into the Constitution, comes into play at this very point. The Founders did not know that their IDEAS were so forward-looking that it would expand the understanding of liberty far beyond that of which they were capable at the time.

‘Conversely, did Jefferson view the Adams administration as illegitimate when it passed and enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts? He certainly viewed the laws themselves as unconstitutional, and he felt it was within the rights of the state of Virginia to secede, but as for questioning the legitimacy of the government that passed the laws, it simply didn’t happen.’

We have no way of knowing exactly at what point was Jefferson’s line in the sand. He didn’t really say. We can only assume that he felt the Alien and Sedition acts should be fought within the system while at the same time maintaining that when government does certain things it ceases to be a legitimate government.

We know the latter is the case because he said so himself. And he went further to state that such government had to be opposed, thus purging it of the cancerous growth of anti-freedom.

Obviously, in Jefferson’s view we never reached that point. But you cannot argue that because of this he had no line in the sand.

Sebastian said it best when he stated that Jefferson was in some ways conflicted. He believed for example that there should be no standing army. And he reduced the Navy down to nothing more than small patrol boats that guarded the East Coast.

I certainly don’t agree with every single thing he said or did, but when it came to the overarching principle of human liberty, he was a pioneer for his time…even for today.

“[To establish republican government, it is necessary to] effect a constitution in which the will of the nation shall have an organized control over the actions of its government, and its citizens a regular protection against its oppressions.”

“[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.”

“Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed.”

And, as if to speak to you, Sebastian:

“The Tory principle of passive obedience [seeks to] become entirely triumphant under the new-fangled names of confidence and responsibility.”

Of course, back then you had Congress arguing over what the constitution meant. A far cry from today’s version of passing whatever laws they damned please, and letting the courts sort things out.

About all that I have learned from this pointless exercise is that there are some angry folks that are talking about fighting in some poorly defined way against some poorly defined threats to achieve a restoration of the founders republic in some undefined manner and everyone else is a bunch of cowards, communists, collaborators, and idiots. I apparently am all four.

Let’s consider this Jefferson quote on majority rule:

The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.

Let’s also consider:

This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants during their generation. They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves.

This is one of the reasons I’ve never been a great admirer of Jefferson. I admire his principles, his pen, and his idealism, but I have to stand with different founding fathers when it comes to actually having to run a government. Jefferson did not pen the constitution, but was only part of its creation. I am a great admirer of Madison, because I think he was a better architect than Jefferson. That’s not to say Jefferson didn’t believe in the constitution… but he was skeptical of binding future generations. He said to Madison:

It is my principle that the will of the majority should prevail. If they approve the proposed constitution in all its parts, I shall concur in it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it works wrong. This reliance cannot deceive us, as long as we remain virtuous.

And how’s this for a ringing endorsement of the Three Percenters:

I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.

Jefferson, in a lot of ways, was a very conflicted man. In many ways, I do think he would identify with the IIIs, and you are in a lot of ways within his philosophy, but you should understand that in many ways you are also without it. Jefferson was mainly an idealist, but he did have a pragmatic streak in him when pushed that way. I don’t really think you can look to one founder as the possessor of truth. I can find much to disagree and agree with among many of them. The remarkable system they created was truly a collective work, born of many compromises by intelligent, and principled men who did share a common belief in individual self-determination, liberty, and republican government. Beyond that, they didn’t agree on specifics.

To quote Franklin, a republic, if we can keep it. For example, it gave us Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, which he made despite the fact that the federal government did not have an enumerated power to aquire territory.

As for Jefferson believing that a generation could set its own laws “as long as that government adhered to the principles of individual liberty. If it didn’t, then that government would be deemed illegitimate”… that’s just nonsense. Did Jefferson view his own administration as illegitimate because it didn’t abolish slavery, though it took the middling step of abolishing the slave trade? How could that be seen as adhering to the principles of individual liberty?

Conversely, did Jefferson view the Adams administration as illegitimate when it passed and enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts? He certainly viewed the laws themselves as unconstitutional, and he felt it was within the rights of the state of Virginia to secede, but as for questioning the legitimacy of the government that passed the laws, it simply didn’t happen.

Jefferson ultimately saw the pragmatic value in fighting those laws within the confines of the Union, making them a central campaign issue in the election of 1800, and using opposition to them as a springboard for advancing his own ideology. He most certainly did not grab his pistols and fowling pieces and hole up in Monticello, waiting for Hamilton’s army to come and get him. He could have publically threatened secession, as he wrote in an early draft of the Virginia Resolution, but he didn’t. He was pragmatic, for both political and civic reasons.

To refuse to see the value of pragmatism is to be as blind as those progressives who see a utopia on the horizon, where all the world will live in peace and harmony forever and ever. Your utopian vision of America is as imaginary as theirs is. We’ve never had that society or government you imagine. From the moment the founders realized that the Articles of Confederation weren’t cutting it, this nation has existed and thrived because men have been both principled and pragmatic, though not always at the same time.