If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

2) Whether, absent those [FRD's]reforms,

a 10 year depression and World War is a liberal's idea of reform?? You are perfectly brainwashed. You have no idea whatsoever. Now we can see why so many millions followed Hitler Stalin Mao. For humans thinking is often not necessary at all; our liberals are perfect proof of it. Is it a surprise our liberals spied for Stalin? Is it a surprise FDR loved Henry Wallace and Alger Hiss?

Wallace was originally a Repbublican as was Morganthau, but Morganthau remained a Republican even though in FDR's cabinet. In any case historians in the last poll named FDR America's greatest president. And the people elected FDR four times, count em four times.
And it's true that now Republicans blame FDR for not spending as much to end the depression as WWII. But until FDR and Hoover, depressions were not considered a govenment's responsiblity. Today we assume the government has almost total responsiblity over economic problems.
 
Wallace was originally a Repbublican

FDR love Wallace because Wallace loved Stalin, not because he had been a Republican?


as was Morganthau, but Morganthau remained a Republican even though in FDR's cabinet.

was he wrong about the liberal unemployment as measured by the BLS??


In any case historians in the last poll named FDR America's greatest president. And the people elected FDR four times, count em four times.

dear, the people supported Hitler Stalin Mao and many others throughout history. Must I say more??


And it's true that now Republicans blame FDR for not spending as much to end the depression as WWII.

of course thats not true but is 100% idiotic. bet $10,000? or admit to being a liberal?
 
Last edited:
Regarding Thomas Jefferson's liberalism, here is a quote (at length) which I like to present illustrating what he really believed. It's from a letter he wrote from France to a certain Rev. James Madison, not to be confused with James Madison the politician, who was a different person.

Thomas Jefferson said:
As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

Here we see Jefferson clearly articulating a core liberal position in the context of an agrarian economy, which requires a different approach than is appropriate for an industrial economy. Nevertheless, the core value is the same: inequality is bad. Inequality threatens liberty. That's true whether the inequality is of political power or, as in this case, of wealth.

Jefferson saw massive inequality of wealth (which for him meant land ownership) in Europe, and he saw its dire effects. His thought was of how to prevent the same thing occurring in America. He was quite prepared to use government to prevent or cure the problem if needed, including a progressive property tax and laws to require breaking up large estates.

In an industrial economy such as we have today, wealth takes different forms, but otherwise the same problem remains, and the attitudes of liberals are unchanged. Only the means differ.



The lynch pin of the whole argument is that the property of that country was absolutely concentrated in the hands of a few.

In this country, home ownership was above 70% and is now around 65% as it has been for most of the years following WW2.

Comparison of that country to this is fallacious.
 
Regarding Thomas Jefferson's liberalism, here is a quote (at length) which I like to present illustrating what he really believed. It's from a letter he wrote from France to a certain Rev. James Madison, not to be confused with James Madison the politician, who was a different person.

Thomas Jefferson said:
As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

Here we see Jefferson clearly articulating a core liberal position in the context of an agrarian economy, which requires a different approach than is appropriate for an industrial economy. Nevertheless, the core value is the same: inequality is bad. Inequality threatens liberty. That's true whether the inequality is of political power or, as in this case, of wealth.

Jefferson saw massive inequality of wealth (which for him meant land ownership) in Europe, and he saw its dire effects. His thought was of how to prevent the same thing occurring in America. He was quite prepared to use government to prevent or cure the problem if needed, including a progressive property tax and laws to require breaking up large estates.

In an industrial economy such as we have today, wealth takes different forms, but otherwise the same problem remains, and the attitudes of liberals are unchanged. Only the means differ.

In the Declaration of Independence, (Jefferson) changed "life liberty and property" to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Why the change? The change is supposed to be because Jefferson already saw the beginnings of corporations and their use of power. Of course, Jefferson had envisioned America as a sea of small farms and America as an agriculture nation, each owning his own farm. Now corporations were emerging and property meant corporate ownership and a different America. And you are correct, the core values of liberalism are the same as brought forth in the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason.



What exactly are the core values to which you refer?
 
There's no may or may not about it. The basic scope of any government is the enforcement of societies laws. Laws, by nature, are limits to what you're allowed to do, i.e. limits to individual freedom. Therefore the basic scope of any government is the enforcement of limits to individual freedom.

Well, actually your final sentence doesn't follow from the rest, all of which is true. Let's say you're living in a village with a man who has so much personal power (through intelligence, charisma, fighting ability, followers, whatever) that he can force others to do what he wants to, or torture or kill them if they don't. A law might be in place that requires him not to torture or kill anyone, or to have them tortured or killed by his followers. While this law would certainly restrict HIS freedom, how can you say that it would restrict YOURS? Would it not, instead, protect you from being coerced by this guy, and thus INCREASE your freedom?

This is the reasoning behind having a government to protect our rights and liberties, and why there is a distinction between liberals (who distrust government but recognize its necessity) and anarchists (who distrust government and do not see its necessity).




One the very basic defining qualities of the Liberal is his reliance on government as the answer to any issue that is presented.

How does this demonstrate a distrust?
 
I certainly agree that many laws only serve to benefit many people who had no ability or desire to commit the acts that those laws identify as criminal. Your village example, however, doesn't contradict what I've said, which I still feel logically follows my premise to a T. Even if the law only serves to limit the individual rights of one man in the village because, for the sake of the argument, he's the only one capable of the force required to break the law, the law is still a limit to individual freedom and the government's scope is still to enforce that limit.

Let me make what I said a little clearer. It's not just that most people have no desire to do what the hypothetical petty tyrant would do, and therefore the law doesn't affect them. It's that most people are victims of the petty tyrant, their liberty is reduced by his activities, and therefore the law, by restraining him from these activities, augments the freedom of most of the people in the village.

Which is, to a liberal, the whole point of law.




Is this view point only held by Liberals?
 
Those really interested in this subject might want to check out Wiseacre's U.S. Presidential Elections thread on this forum. He's written most of the posts there but I've also contributed substantially.

The Democratic-Republican Party, unlike the Federalists, the Whigs, and various minor parties, did not dissolve, ever, not once. In the time of Andrew Jackson, the party was renamed the Democratic Party, which name it still bears. (So of course the OP could not be more wrong; it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, that trace back to the D-Rs.) You could sort of call it a liberal party back then, but from Jackson down to Lincoln it would be more accurate to call it an "agrarian" party -- for preserving the agrarian nature of the U.S. economy and pursuing Thomas Jefferson's vision, against industrialization and all of the government activities that went along with that.

The Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans (by which I mean the one that bears that name today -- founded in the 1850s, first president was Abraham Lincoln, etc.) were all industrial parties, advocating strong central government for the purpose of encouraging the development of industry. Beginning in the 1840s-1850s, the issue of slavery also arose and anti-slavery parties (minor ones like the Free Soil Party) to advocate abolition. The Republicans were the first to combine industrialism with abolitionism.

The Civil War resolved the agrarian-industrial issue. The Democrats thereafter were confined to a challenger role for the most part until under Woodrow Wilson they adopted the reformer, progressive, or industrial-liberal role that was first championed by Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Under Franklin Roosevelt the Democrats made a huge comeback and were never again as weak as between the Civil War and the Great Depression.

As for big versus small government, both parties are big government now, the only difference lies in what exactly they want the government to do.


I agree with everything in Dragon's post, except at the end whe he says both parties are for big gov't. The GOP definitely wants smaller gov't, less gov't spending, and less gov't intervention than the Dems do. Bush43 not withstanding, that was then and this is now.



I think Conservatives want smaller government, but the Republican Party strives mightily to ostracize its Conservatives. They want the Conservative vote, but they want the centralization of power to Washington.

A Republican Senator from indiana, Dick lugar, Doesn't even own a home in Indiana.

If this does't scream Washington is my home, nothing does.

A major problem of our society is that our Representatives are become our rulers and they regard us as their subjects to be ruled, not represented.

When their residence is in Washington, our homes are are in their sights.
 
The question is simply whether or not the the policies of FDR hurried us out of the Depression or not.

No, that's an absurd oversimplification of the issues of the era in a blatant attempt to make Roosevelt's legacy look bad.

In addition to that question, which isn't really a question and that's why you cherry-picked it, there are at least the following:

1) Whether his policies reduced the suffering of the Depression and helped make things better than they would have been otherwise.

2) Whether, absent those reforms, things would have gotten so bad that a real risk of an overthrow of the government and imposition of either a fascist or a Marxist despotism would have existed.

3) Whether the long-term changes in economic policy introduced by Roosevelt contributed to the amazing prosperity of the nation after World War II.

None of these questions is subsumed in the one you asked.




None of them have to be. The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2. The boom time of the 50's and 60's was made possible by the utter destruction and defacto colonization of the the world.

Are you arguing that the policies of FDR served to end the Great Depression?

I cannot argue that they mollified it or not. I know from speaking with my parents who regarded FDR as a God, that he gave hope where there previously was none and for that he must be respected.

It's his policies and whether or not they were effective in ending the Great depression that I am questioning.

The Depression lingered for years and the unemployment was high and the lives of Americans were crushed by it. Otherwise talented and intelligent people were employed in manual labor with no hope of advancing. That is not economic recovery.

There is no evidence to suggest that the policies of FDR contributed toward any economic recovery. If it was impossible to correct absent WW2, we will never know. Most of his policies were to soften the suffering and none were to correct it.

What we do know is that his policies did not end the Great Depression. The problem with reality is that it's so real.
 
Last edited:
Quoting Jefferson proves nothing regarding the core values of liberalism.

why would it given that Jefferson was ultra conservative and as such wanted a very very limited government. To demonstrate this he started the Republican Party which today claims Grover Norquist, Ron Paul, and the Tea Party as members


Jefferson was a liberal and during his time,

if so then a liberal is for very very limited government


At least reading the Declaration is a start. .



You keep on and on with the limited government thing as if that is the key to liberal/conservatism. But the size of government is not a core value of either liberal or conservatism. The fact that conservatives harp today on small government is a passing thing, a campaign gimmick, as it was at one time when the liberals demaded small government. Generally the party out of power wants a small powerless administration, but of more import to each, is the type of govenment, which side the governnment supports that is important.
 
The question is simply whether or not the the policies of FDR hurried us out of the Depression or not.

No, that's an absurd oversimplification of the issues of the era in a blatant attempt to make Roosevelt's legacy look bad.

In addition to that question, which isn't really a question and that's why you cherry-picked it, there are at least the following:

1) Whether his policies reduced the suffering of the Depression and helped make things better than they would have been otherwise.

2) Whether, absent those reforms, things would have gotten so bad that a real risk of an overthrow of the government and imposition of either a fascist or a Marxist despotism would have existed.

3) Whether the long-term changes in economic policy introduced by Roosevelt contributed to the amazing prosperity of the nation after World War II.

None of these questions is subsumed in the one you asked.




None of them have to be. The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2. The boom time of the 50's and 60's was made possible by the utter destruction and defacto colonization of the the world.

Are you arguing that the policies of FDR served to end the Great Depression?

I cannot argue that they mollified it or not. I know from speaking with my parents who regarded FDR as a God, that he gave hope where there previously was none and for that he must be respected.

It's his policies and whether or not they were effective in ending the Great depression that I am questioning.

The Depression lingered for years and the unemployment was high and the lives of Americans were crushed by it. Otherwise talented and intelligent people were employed in manual labor with no hope of advancing. That is not economic recovery.

There is no evidence to suggest that the policies of FDR contributed toward any economic recovery. If it was impossible to correct absent WW2, we will never know. Most of his policies were to soften the suffering and none were to correct it.

What we do know is that his policies did not end the Great Depression. The problem with reality is that it's so real.

Until Hoover depressions/recessions were considered part of the business cycle and they were allowed to run their course. EXcept for Keynes there was no manual, no plans or blueprint for governments to cope or cure depressions. When the Great Depression hit Hoover broke the mold and tried to help by helping business, trickle-down, and it didn't work. FDR at first talked of balancing the budget as a treatment but quickly saw the madness of that with people starving and new governments being formed in Spain and Germany. FDR experimented, when this didn't work he dropped it. But above all he gave hope and with the hope programs. People at the time recognized what he was doing and believed in him.
Historians recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. Now what could Republicans do, but call him names and belittle his accomplishments. Maybe it's a truism that unless you live history it is difficult to understand the period. Those that lived it with FDR understood it.
 
The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.

This is true, but as I said, what ENDED the Depression isn't the important question.

The boom time of the 50's and 60's was made possible by the utter destruction and defacto colonization of the the world.

This is false, for the simple reason that the "utter destruction of the world" is a myth and did not happen. Except for Germany, Japan, and (maybe) the Soviet Union, all the major combatants emerged from the war with bigger and stronger industrial capacity than they went into it. And of course, there were many industrial powers (Sweden and Switzerland for example) who were neutrals and were not even touched by the war.

Are you arguing that the policies of FDR served to end the Great Depression?

Please note that none of the questions I raised had anything to do with what ended the Depression. Therefore, obviously, I'm not arguing that -- I'm arguing something completely different and MUCH more important.

It's his policies and whether or not they were effective in ending the Great depression that I am questioning.

Why, when no one has seriously suggested that Roosevelt's policies ended the Depression? The claims for him lie elsewhere entirely, and I suggested them.
 
Last edited:
The republican party is for limited government? Is that why they vote to use that government's authority to prevent gays from getting married? Limited government, but one that enforces morality when it suits them? Is that why we have a patriot act? Because Republicans are all about limited government?

Not saying all republicans agree with these things, but making the blanket statement that Republicans are for limited government is silly.

as a liberal you miss the point. Yes, Republicans since Jefferson have been for limited government or freedom from big liberal government, but this is different from being anarchists. Jefferson was not for gay marriage

Oh my god are you completely mad?

Smaller government?

Like the war between the states was an example of what? anti-FEDERALISM?

Seriously dude, READ A BOOK.
 
You keep on and on with the limited government thing as if that is the key to liberal/conservatism. But the size of government is not a core value of either liberal or conservatism. The fact that conservatives harp today on small government is a passing thing, a campaign gimmick, as it was at one time when the liberals demaded small government. Generally the party out of power wants a small powerless administration, but of more import to each, is the type of govenment, which side the governnment supports that is important.

Actually, there's a little more to it than that. Agrarian liberalism is different from industrial liberalism. Agrarian liberals do want a very limited central government, not as a core value, but as a means to an end.

Liberalism is ALWAYS about equality, and hence about liberty. Or vice-versa: liberty, and therefore equality. Because it's gross inequality that is the main threat to liberty; when one person is vastly more powerful than another person, he is able to impose his will on the weaker person and compel obedience. But exactly how that mechanic operates, and therefore what to do about it, is different in an agrarian economy than in an industrial one.

In an agrarian economy, a strong central government can and usually does enforce the privilege of the landed elite: very wealthy owners of large amounts of good land, who work that land by means of forced labor (usually slavery but sometimes a kind of bonded peasantry or serfdom instead). Liberals oppose it for that reason. Also, agrarian liberals feared the rise of a capitalist industrial economy and the elevation of a super-wealthy commercial elite, which a strong central government could facilitate through central banking, high tariffs, and subsidies.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. opposed a strong central government but only as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. Classical liberals were quite willing to use government force where it served the ends of equality and liberty.

Industrial liberalism seeks the same things as classical liberalism -- liberty and equality -- but does so by different means because it occupies different circumstances. On land, you walk; in the water, you swim; both are done for the purpose of moving. In an industrial economy, a strong central government is unavoidable and the only question is whether it serves the interests of the commercial/capitalist elite or those of the people as a whole.

Neither modern liberals nor conservatives oppose "big government," but neither do they advocate it as an end in itself. As always, the ends of liberals are liberty and equality, and so liberals advocate government activities that serve these ends while opposing government activities that oppose them.
 
Last edited:
You keep on and on with the limited government thing as if that is the key to liberal/conservatism. .

actually it is what all of human history has been about. It was what the American Revolution was all about and it is obviously what modern politics is all about.

"My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government." -Thomas Jefferson

-
 
Oh my god are you completely mad?

and the liberal will demonstrate that I am?????

Smaller government?

what about it??????????


Like the war between the states was an example of what? anti-FEDERALISM?

do you have any idea why you tried to change the subject to the Civil War???

Seriously dude, READ A BOOK.

why so perfectly afraid to say exactly what you feel I don't know that is a book that you apparently have in mind? What does your fear tell you??
 
Last edited:
The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.

Sorry but that is mistaken. If war production and execution ended the Depression then of course the Depression would have come back full steam the instant the war stopped.

Also if that worked we just make tons of planes and tanks and dump them into the sea
 
Last edited:
Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
RESOLUTIONS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

THE representatives of the good people of this commonwealth in general assembly convened, having maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to their resolutions passed at the last session, respecting certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the alien and sedition laws, would be faithless indeed to themselves, and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained in all those answers, that of Virginia only excepted. To again enter the field of argument, and attempt more fully or forcibly to expose the unconstitutionality of those obnoxious laws, would, it is apprehended be as unnecessary as unavailing.

We cannot however but lament, that in the discussion of those interesting subjects, by sundry of the legislatures of our sister states, unfounded suggestions, and uncandid insinuations, derogatory of the true character and principles of the good people of this commonwealth, have been substituted in place of fair reasoning and sound argument. Our opinions of those alarming measures of the general government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency and with temper, and submitted to the discussion and judgment of our fellow citizens throughout the Union. Whether the decency and temper have been observed in the answers of most of those states who have denied or attempted to obviate the great truths contained in those resolutions, we have now only to submit to a candid world. Faithful to the true principles of the federal union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation.

Least however the silence of this commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles advanced and attempted to be maintained by the said answers, or least those of our fellow citizens throughout the Union, who so widely differ from us on those important subjects, should be deluded by the expectation, that we shall be deterred from what we conceive our duty; or shrink from the principles contained in those resolutions: therefore.

RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiesecence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact:

AND FINALLY, in order that no pretexts or arguments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence on the part of this commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations of federal compact; this commonwealth does now enter against them, its SOLEMN PROTEST.

Approved December 3rd, 1799. - A.K.A. Thomas Jefferson

Avalon Project - Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
 
Last edited:
But above all he [FDR] gave hope

So did Hitler Stalin and Mao??? FDR gave hope but only to fools. What he did was deliver 10 years of Depression and 5 years of world war.


People at the time recognized what he was doing

of course that's idiotic. If they knew he was prolonging the Depression for 10 years and planting the seeds of world war they would have recognized only that at best he was a perfect liberal fool .


. Now what could Republicans do, but call him names and belittle his accomplishments.

of course one has to be perfectly, 100% brainwashed to say Depression and WW 2 are accomplishments. Now you can see why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao. For humans thinking is often just not necessary.
 
Last edited:
Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
RESOLUTIONS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

THE representatives of the good people of this commonwealth in general assembly convened, having maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to their resolutions passed at the last session, respecting certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the alien and sedition laws, would be faithless indeed to themselves, and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained in all those answers, that of Virginia only excepted. To again enter the field of argument, and attempt more fully or forcibly to expose the unconstitutionality of those obnoxious laws, would, it is apprehended be as unnecessary as unavailing.

We cannot however but lament, that in the discussion of those interesting subjects, by sundry of the legislatures of our sister states, unfounded suggestions, and uncandid insinuations, derogatory of the true character and principles of the good people of this commonwealth, have been substituted in place of fair reasoning and sound argument. Our opinions of those alarming measures of the general government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency and with temper, and submitted to the discussion and judgment of our fellow citizens throughout the Union. Whether the decency and temper have been observed in the answers of most of those states who have denied or attempted to obviate the great truths contained in those resolutions, we have now only to submit to a candid world. Faithful to the true principles of the federal union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation.

Least however the silence of this commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles advanced and attempted to be maintained by the said answers, or least those of our fellow citizens throughout the Union, who so widely differ from us on those important subjects, should be deluded by the expectation, that we shall be deterred from what we conceive our duty; or shrink from the principles contained in those resolutions: therefore.

RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiesecence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact:

AND FINALLY, in order that no pretexts or arguments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence on the part of this commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations of federal compact; this commonwealth does now enter against them, its SOLEMN PROTEST.

Approved December 3rd, 1799. - A.K.A. Thomas Jefferson

Avalon Project - Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts

and your point is?
 
The Democratic-Republican Party, unlike the Federalists, the Whigs, and various minor parties, did not dissolve, ever, not once. In the time of Andrew Jackson, the party was renamed the Democratic Party, which name it still bears. (So of course the OP could not be more wrong; it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, that trace back to the D-Rs.) .

100% ignorant: Was the Congressional record wrong too??

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
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top