Jefferson on "'Shays' Rebellion"***

[Wry Catcher]

"...can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed...and what country can preserve its liberty, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance".

***Letter to Colonel Smith, November 13, 1787

 

[Valerie]

"...can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed...and what country can preserve its liberty, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance".

***Letter to Colonel Smith, November 13, 1787

No doubt it's a good thing to remind our leaders who they work for...

 

[konradv]

"...can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed...and what country can preserve its liberty, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance".

***Letter to Colonel Smith, November 13, 1787

No doubt it's a good thing to remind our leaders who they work for...

Unless we take steps towards public financing of elections, IT AIN'T US!!! Politicians work for those who foot the bills and currently that's whoever can bundle the highest amount of campaign contributions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed...and what country can preserve its liberty, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance".

***Letter to Colonel Smith, November 13, 1787

Jefferson also wanted to rewrite the Constitution every 19 years.

Do you have a point?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"...can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed...and what country can preserve its liberty, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance".

***Letter to Colonel Smith, November 13, 1787

Jefferson also wanted to rewrite the Constitution every 19 years.

Do you have a point?

Do you have a source?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Doesn't anyone pay attention in history classes anymore?

U. of I. scholars collecting, analyzing constitutions from around world | Archives | News Bureau | University of Illinois

 

[Old Rocks]

How many amendments does our Constitution have? Seems that there are enough to be about one every twenty years or so. So I would say that we have done as Jefferson suggested. Not always with sanquine results, ie, Prohibition.

 

[Dragon]

Jefferson pulled the 20-year figure out of a hat; in fact, though, the nation's governing institutions go through a major overhaul every 80-odd years:

1787 -- U.S. Constitution replaces Articles of Confederation

1865-1868 -- 13th - 15th Amendments and the creation of a new working relationship between federal government and states

1935-1945 -- reinterpretation of the Constitution to allow more government involvement in the economy, expansion of the U.S. military and of U.S. world presence

And we're due for another quite shortly, probably in the 2020s. Those last three major revisions were all preceded by ghastly breakdowns of the system preexisting them (the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Great Depression, respectively) and we're in one of those now, too.

 

[whitehall]

Wry-catch is a typical left wing poster. It's about the fifth or sixth post I've seen from the left about rebellion. Why would the left wing be so interested in the concept of rebellion these days?

 

[bodecea]

"...can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed...and what country can preserve its liberty, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance".

***Letter to Colonel Smith, November 13, 1787

No doubt it's a good thing to remind our leaders who they work for...

Interesting you post that...you DO know what Shay's Rebellion was about, don't you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Doesn't anyone pay attention in history classes anymore?

U. of I. scholars collecting, analyzing constitutions from around world | Archives | News Bureau | University of Illinois

But there is no source to evidence Jefferson's belief? Your link only offers a quote from someone who writes, "Jefferson believed..." Forty years ago I took a class, Poli Sci or History, I don't recall, which included in the assigned readings a book on Jefferson's letters. Now, I don't recall everything he wrote, nor do I claim to be an expert on Jefferson, but I don't recall such a comment.

I do recall very well his comment on revolution and blood for the tree of liberty, a quote used by the Tea Party but one ignored by conservatives now that OWS is in the news. Why is that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry-catch is a typical left wing poster. It's about the fifth or sixth post I've seen from the left about rebellion. Why would the left wing be so interested in the concept of rebellion these days?

I take your interest in my posts with humility, though I don't recall five or six comments on revolution. I know you disagree with all of my opinions, and that's fine, it's essentially what this message board is all about.

There is very little "typical" about my opinions and I hold very few "left wing" ones. You fear government, I fear those who govern. I believe in our institutions and hold the Constitution as one of the most important document in history - along with the Magna Carta. Yet the New Right seems intent on 'fixing' it.,

 

[JWBooth]

Jefferson pulled the 20-year figure out of a hat; in fact, though, the nation's governing institutions go through a major overhaul every 80-odd years:

1787 -- U.S. Constitution replaces Articles of Confederation

1865-1868 -- 13th - 15th Amendments and the creation of a new working relationship between federal government and states

1935-1945 -- reinterpretation of the Constitution to allow more government involvement in the economy, expansion of the U.S. military and of U.S. world presence

And we're due for another quite shortly, probably in the 2020s. Those last three major revisions were all preceded by ghastly breakdowns of the system preexisting them (the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Great Depression, respectively) and we're in one of those now, too.

The latter two examples cited were without the consent of the people but were imposed upon them to better grow the strength of the government in relation to the governed.

 

[editec]

"...can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed...and what country can preserve its liberty, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance".

***Letter to Colonel Smith, November 13, 1787

The fact that " I say nothing of its motives" is the problem.

What were the MOTIVES of George Washington and the EAST COAST CABAL?

To protect the SLAVE TRADE which counted on the RUM AND SUGAR industries to buy their human cargos.

Yeah that's right, folks.

Repression of US farmers' WHISKEY TRADE was designed to protect the RUM AND SLAVE TRADE.

And those laws (mostly enforced by lopsided and unfair TAX policies) are STILL with us, too.

Maybe some of you are starting to get that I do not put Jefferson on the pedastal that most of you would put him on?

Good!

Now know that I have the same kind of irreverance for the rest of the FLOUNDERING FATHERS, too.

They were humans doing the best they could given the world they started out with.

They didn't get it ALL RIGHT.

 

[Dragon]

The latter two examples cited were without the consent of the people but were imposed upon them to better grow the strength of the government in relation to the governed.

None of them were without the consent of the people, but in fact the first one came closest, being done behind closed doors by a secret convention of mostly rich men, precisely to grow the strength of the government -- that's what the Constitution was for; the idea that it was to weaken the government is a particularly inexplicable right-wing myth. The new Constitution was met with a protest movement that succeeded in getting the Bill of Rights into the final document -- against the will of the Founding Fathers.

The post-Civil War changes strengthened the federal government in relation to the states, not the government in relation to the governed. In fact, in the long run the 14th Amendment put more restraints on government, by subjecting state governments to the Bill of Rights (although that required further court decisions).

And if you think the New Deal was "without the consent of the people," perhaps you'd like to explain how Franklin Roosevelt won four terms as president.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Doesn't anyone pay attention in history classes anymore?

U. of I. scholars collecting, analyzing constitutions from around world | Archives | News Bureau | University of Illinois

Since I don't know if you've read my response and question I'll simply ask again. What source? Not someone's opinion, but what primary source do you have as evidence Jefferson wanted to rewrite our Constitution every 19 years?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Doesn't anyone pay attention in history classes anymore?

U. of I. scholars collecting, analyzing constitutions from around world | Archives | News Bureau | University of Illinois

But there is no source to evidence Jefferson's belief? Your link only offers a quote from someone who writes, "Jefferson believed..." Forty years ago I took a class, Poli Sci or History, I don't recall, which included in the assigned readings a book on Jefferson's letters. Now, I don't recall everything he wrote, nor do I claim to be an expert on Jefferson, but I don't recall such a comment.

I do recall very well his comment on revolution and blood for the tree of liberty, a quote used by the Tea Party but one ignored by conservatives now that OWS is in the news. Why is that?

40 years ago you slept through a class in history, and now you think you are an expert? Do you recall the part of Jefferson's letters where he advocated for the abolishing all debt, both public and private? (Rather convenient considering how far in debt he was.) Do you recall how his friend, Thomas Paine, reacted to the suggestion?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Doesn't anyone pay attention in history classes anymore?

U. of I. scholars collecting, analyzing constitutions from around world | Archives | News Bureau | University of Illinois

But there is no source to evidence Jefferson's belief? Your link only offers a quote from someone who writes, "Jefferson believed..." Forty years ago I took a class, Poli Sci or History, I don't recall, which included in the assigned readings a book on Jefferson's letters. Now, I don't recall everything he wrote, nor do I claim to be an expert on Jefferson, but I don't recall such a comment.

I do recall very well his comment on revolution and blood for the tree of liberty, a quote used by the Tea Party but one ignored by conservatives now that OWS is in the news. Why is that?

40 years ago you slept through a class in history, and now you think you are an expert? Do you recall the part of Jefferson's letters where he advocated for the abolishing all debt, both public and private? (Rather convenient considering how far in debt he was.) Do you recall how his friend, Thomas Paine, reacted to the suggestion?

Nice deflection. I don't think I'm an expert; I do however think. And I think you're unable to provide a primary source and don't have the balls to admit so. Post it and I will publicly apologize.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But there is no source to evidence Jefferson's belief? Your link only offers a quote from someone who writes, "Jefferson believed..." Forty years ago I took a class, Poli Sci or History, I don't recall, which included in the assigned readings a book on Jefferson's letters. Now, I don't recall everything he wrote, nor do I claim to be an expert on Jefferson, but I don't recall such a comment.

I do recall very well his comment on revolution and blood for the tree of liberty, a quote used by the Tea Party but one ignored by conservatives now that OWS is in the news. Why is that?

40 years ago you slept through a class in history, and now you think you are an expert? Do you recall the part of Jefferson's letters where he advocated for the abolishing all debt, both public and private? (Rather convenient considering how far in debt he was.) Do you recall how his friend, Thomas Paine, reacted to the suggestion?

Nice deflection. I don't think I'm an expert; I do however think. And I think you're unable to provide a primary source and don't have the balls to admit so. Post it and I will publicly apologize.

Go read the letters you claimed you studied.

Better yet, read the link I posted the first time.

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

After you do that I will still ignore your question because it has nothing to do with anything I am saying, since I am not a partisan hack that conveniently ignores things that make his position weaker. Or would you like a list of all the OWS supporters who conveniently forgot their own words about restricting Westboro from being able to protest at funerals that now fully supprt OWS actually ignoring laws that restrict camping?

Now I will get back to my initial question, do you have a point?

 

[Wry Catcher]

40 years ago you slept through a class in history, and now you think you are an expert? Do you recall the part of Jefferson's letters where he advocated for the abolishing all debt, both public and private? (Rather convenient considering how far in debt he was.) Do you recall how his friend, Thomas Paine, reacted to the suggestion?

Nice deflection. I don't think I'm an expert; I do however think. And I think you're unable to provide a primary source and don't have the balls to admit so. Post it and I will publicly apologize.

Go read the letters you claimed you studied.

Better yet, read the link I posted the first time.

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

After you do that I will still ignore your question because it has nothing to do with anything I am saying, since I am not a partisan hack that conveniently ignores things that make his position weaker. Or would you like a list of all the OWS supporters who conveniently forgot their own words about restricting Westboro from being able to protest at funerals that now fully supprt OWS actually ignoring laws that restrict camping?

Now I will get back to my initial question, do you have a point?

I could not find the book of Jefferson's letters but did find the letter you offer as proof in a book assigned in a Philosophy Class I took in 1966 (My sophmore year at CAL), Social and Political Philosophy The letter, written by Jefferson to Madison was composed in Paris and dated Sept. 6, 1789.

Your quote is accurate and part of a long and somewhat rambling letter which begins, "I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develop a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches"

My sense is that Jefferson was musing, given the turmoil in Paris during the summer and fall of 1789 in Paris it would not be surprising. It is an idea he wants to explore in greater detail at a later time; to infer his intent was to rewrite our Constitution every 19 years is a reach.

Yes the quote is accurate, though I disagree that it is conclusive that Jefferson wished for the body of law to expire every 19 years.

My point, btw, is that the Tea Party protest lauded Jefferson's comments in his letter to Madison on January 30, 1787 ["...a little rebellion now and then is a good thing..."] and to Colonel Smith on January 13th of that year ["The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"]; yet their support for a "little rebellion" does not carry forth when the "little rebellion", OWS is the example, includes the young, women and minorities. Using pejoratives (commies, lefties, dirty pigs, etc) and casting all of them with the unruly few as vermin, and dirty hippies is no less wrong than those who characterize all Tea Party supporters as right wing racists motivated by greed and callous to the needs of others. There are some TP supporters who do not fit this mold. Well, a few.