• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was our Founders view of history Republican?

IF you have an 18th Century use of that name I will pay you $10,000. Bet?

Here is Congressional record from the era. Welcome to your first lesson in American history.



1)5th Congress (1797-1799)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803)

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34

A fine example of quote mining - using true words without context or by failing to provide statements which would reveal the falsity of the claim being made and supposedly supported by the quote used.

An explanation for just why James is shown to be quote mining is found at this link -
4th Congress (1795-1797)
Majority Party: Federalist (21 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (11 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
Note: The Republican party that emerged in the 1790s is also referred to as the Jeffersonian-Republican party or the Democratic-Republican party, and should not be confused with the modern (GOP) Republican party established in the 1850s. (my emphasis)
 
Sure here are some quoted from Jefferson to prove it:


That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
"

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
― James Madison


" 16)the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-16)governance and the vigilance of the producer class."


-17)A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- 18)this is the sum of good government.

-19)Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-20)History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

-21)I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-22)I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-23)My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-24)Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

-25)Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

-26)The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

-27)Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

-28)Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

-29)Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.


"The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas 36:Jefferson
to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.


"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Note
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.


"The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --39)Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.



"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." --52)Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:337

Two things- Those guys were liberals and they weren't saints. When you capitalize 'founders' I picture your hand over your heart. Do you think Jefferson was infallible?
 
They saw 'Royal Europe' and hoped to avoid permanent wealth and power.

Death, Taxes, and the American Founders
By Andrew M. Schocket 12/12/10
History News Network | Death, Taxes, and the American Founders

"...Today's debate echoes that of the nation's founders in another, more profound way. Does allowing a small number of families to accumulate great wealth -- increasing from generation to generation -- harm democracy? The United States Constitution's ban on inherited titles met with unanimous approval because of the perceived threat posed by lords and earls to a democratic republic. Similarly, Americans have always understood that establishing a small group of families with seemingly unlimited wealth, social privilege, and political power undermines a fundamental American principle: that all citizens are legally and politically equal.

Some founders wanted to eliminate inheritance entirely. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be Redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." Madison gently pointed out the plan's impracticality. Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare Concentrated wealth "a Danger to the happiness of mankind."

At the other end of the spectrum, the Constitutional Convention decided to forbid the English practice of allowing the government to seize the entire estate of a person convicted of treason. They reasoned that the property even of citizens who had committed the highest crimes against the nation should not be wholly confiscated.

But, again like today, most people held views in between. By the 1770s, because of the practices of primogeniture (requiring all property to go to the deceased's first son) and entail (allowing families to will property that could never be divided or sold), along with rich families' penchant for land speculation, about three-quarters of Virginia's good land was owned by only a few hundred families, out of a population of around 400,000. Pressed by the small farmers and landless men on whom it depended for military service, Virginia banned primogeniture and entail in 1777. Virginia reached a compromise: Rich families didn't lose their land, but large estates got Broken up over time, thereby loosening the richest families' grip over Virginia's economy and politics.

So, as with other political issues—even independence itself—Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to Prevent the emergence of a small group of people with Perpetual wealth and thus Perpetual privilege. Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
Clearly the Founding Fathers were a bunch of raging Socialists!
 
Jefferson founded the Republican party with Madison in 1792 because they were very concerned that the tiny tiny govt of George Washington was growing too big. Even then the war against big liberal govt was raging. All of Jefferson's quotes reflect this.

Wrong again.
 
argumentum ad hominem after you lost the debate. Who do you think you are fooling? Only yourself I'm afriad.

I wasn't 'debating' you, so obviously you're fooling yourself, as usual.
 
all Democrats obviously. the whole Democratic program is to redistribute, i.e, take away from those who work and give to those who would not. It is 100% astounding to us that you can't see that on your own.

The whole purpose of "peerage" was to make ones living from rents.

To NOT work. To be free of the taint of trade.

He also has a qoute about the citizens of this country awakening homeless in the country the forefathers secured for them by means of machinations by the greedy.

Our economy is about rents. Actual rent and the renting of money.

The greatest wealth comes from rent seeking activities. Denying access to resources solely to extract rents.

Like the English peerage and landed gentry.
 
The whole purpose of "peerage" was to make ones living from rents.

who's talking about peerage????????????? The whole purpose of Republican capitalism is to serve ones' fellow man by gifting to him better goods and services than any one else in the world can gift to him.
 
you will never get it, under a "mixed government", the senate is non collective, and it has no power of money to be socialist.

unless that power is granted to them by the states much the way the Congress grants power to the courts . Now do you understand?
 
who's talking about peerage????????????? The whole purpose of Republican capitalism is to serve ones' fellow man by gifting to him better goods and services than any one else in the world can gift to him.

Finally scraped together that $10,000 you owe me?
 
unless that power is granted to them by the states much the way the Congress grants power to the courts . Now do you understand?

dude, i through talking to you, i have never put anyone on ignore, but you will find a place soon, because of your LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
 
dude, i through talking to you, i have never put anyone on ignore, but you will find a place soon, because of your LACK OF KNOWLEDGE

translation: I'm losing this debate badly!!
 
who's talking about peerage????????????? The whole purpose of Republican capitalism is to serve ones' fellow man by gifting to him better goods and services than any one else in the world can gift to him.

Are you sure when he was talking about taking from those who work to those who would not he wasn't referring to the peerage/landed gentry? Who did not work. Whose income came from rents from those who do work?

Do you have some kind of link to "welfare" programs from that period? Writings about lazy people expecting the state to care for them?

I think you may very well believe they were talking about the poor when they were actually talking about the peerage. Which is really rich! (Pun intended)
 
Are you sure when he was talking about taking from those who work to those who would not he wasn't referring to the peerage/landed gentry? Who did not work. Whose income came from rents from those who do work?

Actually it does not matter who the group was. Jefferson wanted capitalism and freedom with no group stealing from any other group. FYI capitalism is voluntary and peaceful economic relationships. Oh, and if anyone was part of the peerage it was Jefferson. isn't learning fun??
 
debate, are you kidding? your problem is you try to argue the constitution and the founders, though the eyes of communism and socialism, conservatism and liberalism.. which is ridiculous.

you say ridiculous but you lack the ability to say why it is ridiculous!! To our Founders communism would have been no different than any other form of big liberal central government!!

Thomas Jefferson on Communism: ( sorry to rock your world)

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
 
Actually it does not matter who the group was. Jefferson wanted capitalism and freedom with no group stealing from any other group. FYI capitalism is voluntary and peaceful economic relationships. Oh, and if anyone was part of the peerage it was Jefferson. isn't learning fun??

I'm actually going to get back to you on this one.

I think some quotes used by conservatives to demonstrate the Founders' attitudes towards income redistribution may actually have been commentary on peerage/gentry who did not work and lived off rents from those who do.

I honestly can't think of any contemporary situations involving the government giving money to the poor. No entitlements at all except maybe military pensions?

Point me to it. I'm gonna look myself.

I don't think the Founders were talking about taking from the rich and giving to the poor but about the non-working rich taking from the working poor in rents.

The system the Founders rejected.
 
I think some quotes used by conservatives to demonstrate the Founders' attitudes towards income redistribution may actually have been commentary on peerage/gentry who did not work and lived off rents from those who do.

as I said most Founders were wealthy and many slave owners. Do you still not understand??
 
I don't think the Founders were talking about taking from the rich and giving to the poor but about the non-working rich taking from the working poor in rents.

you're too biased to think at all!! they wanted freedom and capitalism with no one taking from anyone!!!

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!! :

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
or that of his fathers." --37)Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
Address, 1805.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Note
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

"Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas 39)Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

"The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --39)Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.
 
A Jefferson quote often used by those who see our modern system of governance as being more tyrannical than that intended by the Founders is one from Thomas Jefferson

. . . yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny

These words are found in A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge submitted by Jefferson to the Virginia Assembly in 1779

It was a bill proposing that the new state of Virginia pay for the public education of its young people - the reasoning being that the more knowledge held within the general citizenry, the better the governance of those people will be maintained

And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked (my emphasis)

It is bizarre in my opinion, that I can read various commenters making claims that public education is a socialist evil and paying for it when one has no children is little more than theft by the government when the very same commenters often quote the Founders in attempts to support what I see as rather strange concepts of civilisation.
 
Back
Top Bottom