Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jefferson And Heroism

Rate this topic


AMERICONORMAN

Recommended Posts

I propose that, fittingly, we start a Jefferson thread. I hope that people can post quotes or anecdotes that reveal Jefferson’s heroism. Was he a hero that proved that the pen is mightier than the sword? I am currently read a biography by Noble Cunnigham, Jr. called In Pursuit of Reason. (The quotes that follow are from that book.

In 1798, the Adams’ Federalists introduced new Acts—for Aliens and Sedition—in response to a “crisis” with France. Jefferson found these unconstitutional and drew his pen:

“Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes,--delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

He proposed to “sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness.”

The next chapter is the Election of 1800. I haven’t read it yet but it promises to be exciting. Jefferson’s role in 1798 led to the excitement of 1800.

Thanks,

Americo.

:dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I want to bring this thread back to life because I tend to disagree with a number of people on Jefferson's legacy. I think he is nowhere near as moral as Adams and Washington were, for example. I'd like to hear why people admire Jefferson, aside from his authorship of the Declaration, which I have a few words to comment on as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to bring this thread back to life because I tend to disagree with a number of people on Jefferson's legacy.  I think he is nowhere near as moral as Adams and Washington were, for example.  I'd like to hear why people admire Jefferson, aside from his authorship of the Declaration, which I have a few words to comment on as well.

Jefferson was I think much more uncompromising than Adams or Washington.

As an example, it was Washington who imposed excise taxes in 1795. Jefferson opposed him.

Jefferson opposed the institution of the Bank of America while Washington favored it.

It was John Adams who imposed the Alien and Sedition Act and new taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with almost all of Felipe's critiques, as posted on his site (linked above), not to mention strongly disagreeing with the sweeping conclusions (e.g., the description of Jefferson as a "conniving, self-delusional, pathological liar".)

I didn't want silence regarding the above link being construed as agreement. However, I won't address these issues here, unless they are tersely re-stated onto this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, my claims:

1. Jefferson betrayed George Washington

2. Jefferson betrayed John Adams

3. Jefferson was not a man of sound principle, in fact he was driven by his perverted vision of government whereby the French revolution was considered moral, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

4. His duplicity and lying are evidenced by (among other instances) his denail of 1 and 2 to the persons of 1 and 2, respectively.

For supporting evidence, see my blog post. What do you have to say against these claims, which are backed up by historical documents? Please provide supporting evidence, not opinion, to back up your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, my claims: [...]

I don't really want to be a big part of this thread but I will note a few things.

1) On his blog, Felipe indicates this: (Note: All quotes from the Pulitzer Prize winning Founding Brothers, Ellis, Joseph J., First Vintage Books Edition, February 2002.)

And indeed there is extensive quoting from this book. Frankly, it is utterly ridiculous to base *any* assessment of any major historical figure from a single book written in 2002. The only fair approach is a firsthand analysis of primary source documents, i.e., documents written by Jefferson himself and his contemporaries, taken in context and integrated properly. There are many pre-digested conclusions from that single book that Felipe is offering as supposed facts. This is akin to reading something by the Brandens to determine something about Ayn Rand's character, without reference to her own writings and other views.

2) Felipe blows off the major contributions made by Jefferson in the founding of America - in Jefferson's own assessment, it would be as the author of the Declaration of Independence; the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which established the first wall between Church and State; and founder of the University of Virginia. This is not exhaustive by any means.

As an indication of the scope of Jefferson's intellectual interests, note that after the British burned down Washington, including the then-3,000 volumes of the Library of Congress, Jefferson sold his own library to replace the volumes - a total of 6,487 books, considered to be the best library in existence in America, and an astonishing number even for today for a private library.

Jefferson was behind the greatest expansion of American territory, with the Lousiana purchase resulting from his diplomatic and political efforts. After the purchase he sent Lewis and Clarke to explore the western territories, a journey of extreme historical importance to the future of the country by helping Americans to gauge the real extent of the new country.

etc.

For actual primary source documents, and much else related to Jefferson, see here:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I noted in the comments, however, my sentiment is shared by C. Bradley Thomson, who wrote Spirit of Liberty, which is a biograrphy of John Adams, and who is an Objectivist (not that this constitutes proof, but that this isn't "utterly ridiculous") and lectures at OCON. I chose to quote only that book because it was concise in its treatment, but I can provide at least one other reputable source if you'd like.

And while you point out mainly intellectual achievement, my points of contention are moral in nature, so your points are predominantly non-applicable to my claims.

And no, this is not a kin to reading a Branden biography of Rand, because we are *hundreds* of years away from this history, and there *aren't* any personal vendettas between author and subject.

Anyway, do you suppose that these claims are fallacious? Let's focus on his relationship between Adams and Washington, as well as his theories on government (original, theories). Also, do you think a book would be awarded a Pulitzer prize if it published "ridiculous" claims? Truly, do you think we've reached the point that dishonesty is awarded through the Pulitzer?

So, did he not betray Adams and Washington? Did he not lie to them? Was he not duplicotus? Remember, the standard are the other Fathers, not some other random moral man. He is remembered as similar in stature to Washington, and much greater in stature than Adams. I find this a tragedy, especially considering how Adams has been treated historically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Felipe: "So, did he not betray Adams and Washington? Did he not lie to them? Was he not duplicotus?"

One thing at a time. How did he "betray" Washington? Please restate the case briefly. If you must cut-and-paste from your website, please edit appropriately. The website commetary is very long. Also, I find that almost all of it is summary from a single book. In fact, regarding Jefferson on Washington, there is only one quote (and that with limited context).

Did he not betray them [him]? Did he not lie to them [him]? Was he not duplicitous? ...Why are you asking us? Show us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is beside the point somewhat, but I wanted to rein this in before it was left to simmer too long: Felipe said "As I noted in the comments, however, my sentiment is shared by C. Bradley Thomson..."

Are you suggesting that Brad Thompson shares your assessment of Jefferson as a "conniving, self-delusional, pathological liar...", and "hypocritical", and "duplicitous"?

...If you are not suggesting this, do you think you should disavow these attributions now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, first the claim that Jefferson is dishonest and conniving (all content between " " is directly from historical documents)--

During the public controversy surrounding the founding of Freneau's National Gazette, Jefferson was once again less than honest in explaining his role in the matter to George Washington.  Julian Boyd, editor of the Jefferson Papers, was forced to conclude that Jefferson was thoroughly disingenuous in explaining to the President the role that he had played in founding and sponsoring a newspaper that was hostile to the administration.  See Julian Boyd, "Editor's Note,"... Jefferson's use of the press to further his political aims is ably discussed in Frank Mott, Jefferson and the Press (Baton Rouge, La., 1943).
JA to Thomas Jefferson, 29 July 1791, Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 20: 305-7.  In a thinly veiled reference to Adams [And Washington -- ed.], Jefferson told Philip Mazzei in 1796 that it "would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies [monarchy and aristocracy], men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England."  Right up until he end of his life, Jefferson insisted on repeating his indictment.  In 1825, he asked William Short if it was possible to "read Mr. Adams's defense of the American Constitutions without seeing that he was a monarchist?"
[Jefferson felt] the urge to assure Washington that, contrary to the gossip circulating in the corridors and byways of Philadelphia, he was not responsible for the various rumors describing the president as a quasi-senile front man for the Federalist conspiracy against the vast majority of the American people.  The historical record makes it perfectly clear, to be sure, that Jefferson was orchestrating the campaign of vilification, which had its chief base of operations in Virginia and its headquarters at Monticello.  But Jefferson was the kind of man who could have passed a lie-detector test confirming his integrity, believing as he did that the supreme significance of his larger cause rendered conventional distinctions between truth and falsehood superfluous.

Washington's response was designed to let Jefferson know that his professed innocence itself sounded like the defense comments of a guilty man, and that Washington already knew a good deal more than Jefferson realized about who was whispering what behind his back.  "If I had entertained any suspicious before," wrote Washington, "the assurances you have given me of the contrary would have removed them; but the truth is, I harboured none." (Translation: Your protests confirm my suspicions.)  Then Washington parted the curtain covering his soul just enough to show Jefferson a glimpse of what he truly felt: "As you have mentioned the subject yourself, it would not be frank, candid or friendly to conceal that your conduct has been represented as derogatory from the opinion I had conceived you entertained to me." (Translation: I am onto your game.) "That to your particular friends and connexions you have described, and they have described me, as a person under a dangerous influence." (Translation: My sources are impeccable.) "My answer has invariable been that I had never discovered any thing in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicions in my mind of his insincerity."  (Translation: I have not done unto others what they have been doing unto me.)

Washington concluded with an impassioned defense of his support for Jay's Treaty: "I was using my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, independent, as far as our obligations and justice would permit, of every nation of the earth."  But somehow he had "been accused of being the enemy of one Nation [France], and subject to the influence of another [England]; and to prove it, that every act of my administration should be tortured, and the most insidious misrepresentations of them be made (by giving on side only of a subject, and that too in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero, a notorious defaulter; or even to a common pick-pocket.)  But enough of this; I have already gone farther in the expression of my feelings that I intended." (Translation: Even this mere glimpse into my soul is more than you deserve, my former friend.)

For the next year, Jefferson attempted to sustain at least the veneer of a friendship with Washington by writing him letters in the Virginia gentleman mode, avoiding politics and foreign policy altogether... Then all communication from Mount Vernon to Monticello ceased forever.

In a letter exchange between Abigail Adams and Jefferson (in 1804) prompted by the death of his daughter after a long spell of no communication between the two families, Jefferson took the opportunity, uninvited, to review the long political partnership he had enjoyed with her husband, getting in some digs against JA. Mrs. Adams was not going to have any of it.
Abigail launched a frontal attack on Jeffersons' character.  Throughout Adams's presidency, she claimed, Jefferson had used his position as vice president to undermine the policies of the very man he had been elected to support.  This was bad enough.  But the worst offenses occurred during the election of 1800.  Jefferson was guilty of "the blackest calumny and foulest falsehoods" during that bitter campaign.  While affecting disinterest and detachment, he was secretly hiring scandalmongers like James Callander to libel Adams with outrageous charges: Adams was mentally deranged; Adams intended to have himself crowned as an American monarch; Adams planned to appoint John Quincy his successor to the presidency.  "This, Sir, I considered as a personal injury," Abigail observed, "the Sword that cut the Gordion knot."  It was richly ironic and wholly deserving that the infamous Callender had then turned on Jefferson and accused him of a sexual liaison with Sally Hemings, his household slave.  "The serpent you cherished and warmed," she noted with satisfaction, "bit the hand that nourished him."

..His first instinct was to claim that both sides, Republicans and Federalists alike, had engaged in lies and distortions during the election of 1800, and that he had suffered equivalent "calumnies and falshoods" along with Adams.  (This was completely true.) He then went on to disclaim that "any person who knew either of us could possibly believe that either meddled in that dirty work."  In effect, he had no role whatsoever in promoting Callender's libels against Adams. (This was a lie.)

..Abigail was having none of it.  As she saw it, Jefferson's denials only offered further evidence of his duplicity.  His complicity in behind-the-scenes political plotting was common knowledge. ... there was no denying that Jefferson had mortgaged his honor to win an election.  His Federalist critics had always accused him of being a man of party rather than principle.  "Pardon me, Sir, if I say," Abigail concluded, "that I fear you are."

So there you have it, Jefferson romantics, dishonest, coniving, and betrayal. How can anyone place this man on the same moral pedestal as the other Founders?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there you have it, Jefferson romantics, dishonest, coniving, and betrayal.  How can anyone place this man on the same moral pedestal as the other Founders?

There you have *what*? You continue to quote from second hand, modern sources with their predigested conclusions and biases.

A real authority on history, Objectivist history professor John Ridpath, took note of Ellis in an April 20, 2005 post on the HBL list. Dr. Ridpath references an article in the July 2002 issue of TIA, by Patrick Mullin, which evidently analyzes Ellis' smear campaign against the founding fathers - which includes George Washington, a purported biography titled "His Excellency" which attempts to show that Washington wanted to be regarded as something of a king. (I am paraphrasing because I don't want to verbatim copy material from HBL.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I take the sentiment of the "fake historian" Bradley Thompson too seriously. And so you refute the quoted text from Washington's and Abigail Adams's own hands, the sentiment of which cannot be "interpreted" as anything other than a Jefferson betrayal?

Oh, and by the way, I have heard from people that attend the conferences that John Ridpath's romanticized views of Jefferson aren't shared carte blanche among the other O'ist historians. This doesn't constitute a refutation of his views, only that I wouldn't take them to heart so easily. I've never read anything by Ridpath, but what I've read from Thompson is very reasoned and, because he generously quotes from historical documents, and painstakingly builds context, very credible. That Joseph Ellis's views seem to correlate with Thompson's views of Jefferson is reason enough for me to give some measure of credibility to them. Perhaps Ridpath has written something quotable that demonstrates that either these claims are arbitrary or fallacious? I mean, actual historical documents are quoted and are consistent with the views painted here. I can't dismiss them out-of-hand as you seem to be doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering Brad Thompson's quotes first...

I don't interpret his (Jefferson's) disagreements with Washington as quite so conniving as you apparently do. Jefferson disapproved of the Jay Treaty. He criticized it, and criticized Washington in connection with it, in a polite way.

To take a "thinly veiled" reference to a criticized party, as described to a third party, and describe it as "betrayal", seems to play fast and loose with the gravity of the concept "betrayal". Jefferson, Washington, and Adams were politicians. They disagreed over political issues. They expressed these disagreements, sometimes in confidence to others. They didn't offend those criticized with an "in-your-face" direct insult, a la Jerry Springer. This is "dishonest and conniving"? I don't buy it.

As for Ellis' quotes, I second the previous poster in dismissing Ellis altogether. his conclusions are broad and sweeping, with no support.

E.g., "Jefferson felt] the urge to assure Washington that,..."

"Jefferson felt the urge"? Supported by what document? Based on what verifiable premise? The very phrasing of this sentence is condescending: "...felt the urge", as if he were a unreasoning brute who was caught doing something he shouldn't and resorted to blind rationaization. "Felt the urge..." Sheesh.

Continuing: "...contrary to the gossip circulating in the corridors and byways of Philadelphia, he was not responsible for the various rumors describing the president as a quasi-senile front man for the Federalist conspiracy against the vast majority of the American people."

Look at the loaded phrasing here. "Quasi-senile front man". "Federalist conspiracy against the vast majority..." It's not even been established by Ellis that this was the content of criticism of Washington, and yet it's repeated here, with the exaggerations taken for granted.

"...The historical record makes it perfectly clear, to be sure, that Jefferson was orchestrating the campaign of vilification, which had its chief base of operations in Virginia and its headquarters at Monticello."

Uh huh. So perhaps a quoted letter would be helpful here, since we are assured that "the historical record makes it perfectly clear". Even if we include the earlier "thinly veiled" reference (allegedly) to Washington, -- a detail which Ellis conspicuously omits -- Jefferson's criticism hardly can be described as an "orchestrated campaign of vilification".

This is just plain bad history. It's out-of-context smatterings of quotes, offered together with large helpings of sweeping interpretation, for the purpose of butressing a not-so-thinly-veiled agenda of sensationalism. I won't spend any more time dignifying Ellis with criticism. Perhaps we should stick more with original sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things. One, I agree that much of Ellis's sentiment is sweeping and not precisely backed by what he quotes. Second, yes these men were politicians, but clearly not in the modern sense. They were first men of honor, second men of politics. Principle, after all, came before politics, to these men. I will research further as to the validity of the claim that Jefferson indeed sacrificed principle for politics, as Ellis claims. As far as Thompson, note the "Jefferson was once again less than honest in explaining his role in the matter to George Washington. Julian Boyd, editor of the Jefferson Papers, was forced to conclude that Jefferson was thoroughly disingenuous in explaining to the President the role that he had played in founding and sponsoring a newspaper that was hostile to the administration." line, which explicitly accepts an underlying dishonesty to Jefferson. Look, I think there is, at minimum, enough evidence to suspect Jefferson, so I will look for further proof of this based on first-hand and respected sources. What historians are respected so that I might check them out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things.  One, I agree that much of Ellis's sentiment is sweeping and not precisely backed by what he quotes.  Second, yes these men were politicians, but clearly not in the modern sense.  They were first men of honor, second men of politics.

I think you give too much credit to that sentiment. :D

Jefferson has serious reservations about the Federalist policy and a lot of it was aimed at legitimate critiques. Such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, high taxation and a bias towards England(especially Hamilton, who had unknowingly been leaking state secrets to the British). Had we been around in his day, I'm sure many of us would be HIGHLY critical of the Federalist party.

Did he do some underhanded stuff? I'm sure. But so did other politicians of the day. Washington's own second-in-command, Hamilton, proved to be rather politcally savvy and conniving in his own ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you're right, but what I suspect is that Washington and Adams, for example, did not engage in the dirty things Jefferson did, and that Jefferson's legacy is hyped because of his eloquence in writing, while Washington and Adams were moral men of the first kind, and Adams specifically is relegated to insignificance.

With regard to the Alien and Sedition Acts (ASA), I have a mixed opinion on the matter. While I view them as arbitrary government force (and so they were rightly laughable at the time of their implementation), I think what Jefferson did in sharing administrative goings-on as VP to his francophile friends would be considered treasonous in modern times. So I think, while the ASA are a horrible example of Objective Law, the motive behind their implementation was in fact treasonous activity on the part of Jefferson and thus just. Granted that back then what was considered treasonous was not understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the Alien and Sedition Acts (ASA), I have a mixed opinion on the matter.  While I view them as arbitrary government force (and so they were rightly laughable at the time of their implementation), I think what Jefferson did in sharing administrative goings-on as VP to his francophile friends would be considered treasonous in modern times.
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but I remind you that Hamilton had been telling British diplomats, with whom he established personal ties with, secrets about American diplomacy which could hamper American interests in Britain.

So I think, while the ASA are a horrible example of Objective Law, the motive behind their implementation was in fact treasonous activity on the part of Jefferson and thus just.
Again, I don't particularly understand how you can blame the motive of the law on Jefferson. Jefferson opposed to law, which violated individual rights and was clearly, in part, politically motivated in order to prevent a growth in Jeffersonian Republican party members by curtailing naturalization.

Granted that back then what was considered treasonous was not understood.

Treason is in the Constitution itself, so I don't understand why you would say they didn't understand it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
In 1825, he asked William Short if it was possible to "read Mr. Adams's defense of the American Constitutions without seeing that he was a monarchist?"

Felipe would you happen to know what letter this came from? I can't find any letter to William Short in my book of Jefferson's writings for the year 1825(which I'm sure does not contain them all) . Or was it something other then a letter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
I want to bring this thread back to life because I tend to disagree with a number of people on Jefferson's legacy. I think he is nowhere near as moral as Adams and Washington were, for example. I'd like to hear why people admire Jefferson, aside from his authorship of the Declaration, which I have a few words to comment on as well.

Jefferson is given a pass because of his intelligence and eloquence With the possible exceptions of Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson was the smartest of the Founders (but hardly the wisest). He was a spendthrift and a very bad manager of his cash flow. As a result he was strapped and in debt a good part of the time and was unable to unload his slaves since they were collateral for outstanding loans. Jefferson knew full well that slavery was an evil institution, but his bad personal habits made it impossible for him to free his slaves.

Jefferson's Nemesis Alexander Hamilton knew how to manage money. While Hamilton never became rich when he served as secretary of the treasury (he was very straight laced regarding his public service) he managed to put the U.S. on a sound fiscal basis. It was Hamilton's management of the finances that made the money available for Jefferson to purchase the Louisiana Territory from the French.

Jefferson in many respects is flawed. His was a towering intellect and one feels disappointed at his lack of fiscal discipline. He was smart enough to design Monticello, his home, but not smart enough to manage his money. George Washington was a far better money manager than Jefferson. Perhaps that is why Washington regarded Alexander Hamilton as his surrogate son.

Bob Kolker

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...