Jump to content
Science Forums

Who cares what Jefferson thought?


Fishteacher73

Recommended Posts

In the US many arguments arise concerning the constitutionaliy of something or another. One point that usually is brought up is the orginal intent of the authors and ratifiers. In specific instances this makes some sense, in other absolutly none. This document was written by people with individual flaws and perspectives. They did not see it neccessary to ban slavery. So why do does it matter what Madison or Jefferson thought about something? They had no concept of what we would be facing today and their POV on certain issues is definately antiquated.

 

Just a though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's very cool that they knew everything that you just said. I mean, they recognized that they were just people. They knew they were capable of making mistakes. They acknowledged that there would come a time when things might be very different here. And they had the smarts to include those things in the Constitution. I mean, that whole 'living, breathing document' thing is really kinda neat. The fact that they made it adaptable is amazing.

I agree, it doesn't matter a whole lot what their original intent was, because the world in which they lived is vastly different from the world that we inhabit today. But I think they deserve some praise for having the foresight to know that we would face different challenges, and leaving us with a way to get through those challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant no disrespect. I just meant that using quotes from Jefferson in a modern argument seems a bit pointless in some cases. The constitution has been applied and adapted (and a very good document it is) in such a diversity of ways that the frame of mind that the authors had has little or no berring on the argument at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To criticize is to volunteer. If you have a better formulation of the US Constitution, share it with us. Attempts to alter the Constitution - its Amendments - have met with mixed results. Banning slavery, Prohibition, and granting women suffrage are explicitly questionable given empirical results.

 

The Founding Fathers were slaveholders, criminals, libertines, druggies, and businessmen. They knew what they were doing. Massive changes in their intent - the aforementioned Amendments, Roosevelt's frantic socialism, President Johnson's "Great Society" - are summing to disaster. The elimination of personal responsiblity is not mere inconvenience for productive sectors of society. It is an end to America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

___The most recent influence on my thinking about the founding fathers is from the book Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood. I do think it is relevant to care what Jefferson & the others thought, inasmuch as human thinking transcends time. By that I mean we experience the deadly sins much as did Jefferson or any other cogent thinker in any time.

___Among the tidbits in the aforementioned book, an exerpt from a letter Jefferson wrote to friend commenting on his view of the common people. I don't have the exact quote, but it wasn't so different from Uncle Al's " criminals, libertines, druggies, and businessmen".

___Another observation from the book; Jefferson liked the idea of Jesus - he wrote a book of his favorite Jesus sayings - but he was a deist , not a christian. Same for Washington & Franklin.

___I care what Jefferson thought. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant no disrespect. I just meant that using quotes from Jefferson in a modern argument seems a bit pointless in some cases. The constitution has been applied and adapted (and a very good document it is) in such a diversity of ways that the frame of mind that the authors had has little or no berring on the argument at hand.

I'm sorry Fish. I didn't mean to imply that you were disrespectful. I hope that's not what you thought.

And I do agree that using their quotes, thoughts, etc. on some issues is a bit pointless. They were able to predict that we would have a very different world, but I doubt they even they could have imagined just how different.

UA was right, they were human, and had many faults, but no more or less than the people in charge now, or at any other time in our country's past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fishteacher73 In the US many arguments arise concerning the constitutionaliy of something or another. One point that usually is brought up is the orginal intent of the authors and ratifiers. In specific instances this makes some sense, in other absolutly none. This document was written by people with individual flaws and perspectives. They did not see it neccessary to ban slavery. So why do does it matter what Madison or Jefferson thought about something? They had no concept of what we would be facing today and their POV on certain issues is definately antiquated.

 

Just a though...

 

I pay attention to them and I don't necessarily find them antiquated.

 

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover his country with troops for its defence, so that ten thousand men descending from the clouds might not, in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief before a force could be brought together to repel them?"

Benjamin Franklin in 1784

 

Those founders weren't stupid.

 

Damocles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were able to predict that we would have a very different world, but I doubt they even they could have imagined just how different.

___This point is well made in the book I referenced by way of personal letters between the founding fathers. We today somehow seem to take the view that special interest groups in politics is a new phenoemna, but these letters reveal the founders dealt with it almost immediately. The coblers wanted their interests represented, as did the mariners, as did the bankers, etc. This took Jefferson & the others quite by surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, you've convinced me, Turtle. I'm gonna put that book on my 'to look for' list, and I'll pick it up when I'm in town next week. I haven't read a good non-fiction in about 2 weeks, so I'm a bit overdue. Shame on me. And thanks for the suggestion. I love getting book tips from you guys. There are always good ones out there that I've never heard of, but I can usually count on one of you to point me in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of a constitution is that of setting the most fundamental things, although not overly presuming it to be quite infallible and eternally permanent, and leaving other things as being more "daily".

 

I mean, that whole 'living, breathing document' thing is really kinda neat. The fact that they made it adaptable is amazing.
It isn't all that amazing if you read through history. It was done along the lines of thinking that had been spreading through the whole of the western world, partly by philosophers and partly the bourgeoisie rising against the aristocracy. Although Jefferson used Locke as a source for rhetoric, those who fought for independence and then wrote the US Constitution were essentially, as said here, businessmen with a lot of interests to defend. The Bill of Rights came as an afterthought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't all that amazing if you read through history. It was done along the lines of thinking that had been spreading through the whole of the western world, partly by philosophers and partly the bourgeoisie rising against the aristocracy.

 

___That is just what is amazing; they actually did it. Yes these ideas were flying around Europe, but no one followed through & employed them. One of the key philosphical aspects in the US constitution is the separation of powers; the first European nation to adopt a similar constitution, Sweden, did so after the US.

___Further, since they did it when no one else had, knowing what they thought strikes me as germaine.

___Irish, I'm honored I so persuaded you; the book is only 10 or so years old, so its likely easy to find. If you do read The Radicalism of the American Revolution, please post your impressions of it & your impressions of my impressions of it. :) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. It was far easier for the several states to do after defeating the king of England. In Europe people had been fighting for these things, plenty of martyrs and the lot and the separation of powers was part of the idea. BTW, the independance from England had been won with a whopping help from... the French Crown!!! Strategy against the British. It bled the French gov't so much that the resulting economic difficulties helped trigger off the French Revolution. History can be contorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

___It isn't clear if you disagree with all I said in the previous post or just a specific.

___I grant you the martyrs & fighting, protracted fighting even, but it failed to establish a government before the US. As to the French help, we do love our Ben Franklin (the old rascal!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

___It isn't clear if you disagree with all I said in the previous post or just a specific.
Actually, I meant quite a few things that couldn't really fit into a post or two. It would be out of place and off topic to discuss history through the Middle Ages and till the 20th century.

 

___I grant you the martyrs & fighting, protracted fighting even, but it failed to establish a government before the US.
This is totally beyond the point and isn't even fact. In what sense it failed to establish a government? Do you mean not one like the US? The situation was chaotic in Europe, since the Holy Roman Empire decayed into feudalism and then the situation evolved toward modern times. It doesn't make sense to so simply compare things that were in totally different situations.

 

As to the French help, we do love our Ben Franklin (the old rascal!).
My point was that there is nothing so amazing about how things went from 1776 onward. There's nothing wrong with being a bit patriotic but there's no point in loosing perspective and boasting about a few years before or after without comparing the overall situations.

 

There were various republics, large and small and of differing durations, even before the Enlightenment and the explicit distinction between the three powers. They took on different forms, also according to size. In any case here in Europe it was a perennial contention with the aristocracy which, unlike in North America, had become such a firm and deeply rooted power. Nevertheless monarchies were also forced to grant more democratic institutions, England had a parliament quite early. This, imv, makes all that happened in Europe toward democracy very admirable. The birth of the US was a follow up of it in a favourable situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

___Thanks Q; it is refreshing to have a European view. Politics aside for the moment, I care what Jefferson thought (as well as Franklin & a few others of the time) in large part because of their inventions & scientific investigations. Jefferson's copy machine, agricultural practices, & architectual designs to name a few, & of course Franklin's stoves, kites, & the harmonium come to mind naturally. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...