Thomas Jefferson and controversial concessions to a foreign power

[Agit8r]

Negotiations to end the Quasi-War began in late 1800 under the outgoing Adams administration. But the pending treaty was controversial and the finalized treaty would not be ratified until December of 1801. Despite this, the new Jefferson administration began making concessions much earlier, including the repair and return of the French warship Berceau in June of that year, which drew considerable criticism from the Federalists:

"Now, is it not notorious that one great complaint of the jacobins against the federalists is, that the latter are friendly to the executive department... Yet every democrat extols Mr. Jefferson for delivering up the Berceau, and carrying the French treaty into full effect, before congress has even met to consider it."
-- Fisher Ames; from 'Equality, No III'

 

[there4eyeM]

France had been a crucial ally in the successful American war for national liberation. The conflict was mostly over America's refusal to repay the enormous amount of money the French monarchy had loaned, citing the absence of the king to whom the debt was owed. In the context, the US had every reason to be prepared to make 'concessions', especially to avoid further bloodshed.

 

[Agit8r]

France had been a crucial ally in the successful American war for national liberation. The conflict was mostly over America's refusal to repay the enormous amount of money the French monarchy had loaned, citing the absence of the king to whom the debt was owed. In the context, the US had every reason to be prepared to make 'concessions', especially to avoid further bloodshed.

Sure, sure. But was the president authorized to make those concessions without permission from congress... in the founding era...

 

[TheOldSchool]

Wow that Thomas Jefferson, he must've hated America!!!

 

[hjmick]

215 years ago the world was a much different place...

 

[Agit8r]

215 years ago the world was a much different place...

And yet it seems that history repeats itself.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I bet AIPAC was fully opposed to Jefferson's acquiescence!

 

[there4eyeM]

215 years ago the world was a much different place...

And yet it seems that history repeats itself.

...only the lessons.

 

[Agit8r]

215 years ago the world was a much different place...

And yet it seems that history repeats itself.

...only the lessons.

I'm just noting that the Federalist outrage over Jefferson's dealings sounds awfully familiar.

 

[whitehall]

Jefferson's Constitutional accpmplishments were rather prosaic until modern left wing elites discovered that Jefferson might have concealed liberal concepts that weren't acknowledged in the greatest Document ever created. It was around mid-century when liberals found out that the under-educated media would have no objections if they could use Jefferson's private opinions to undermine the Constitution. When (mostly) Catholic religious private schools became popular in the 1930's the KKK and religious bigots were outraged about alleged "Papist" interference but they were powerless to stop the free expression of religious freedom in that pesky 1st Amendment. FDR appointed a former KKK member to the Supreme Court and he wrote the majority opinion in 1947 that created the modern version of the "separation of Church and state" that did not appear in the Constitution. Justice Black found an obscure out of context letter written by Thomas Jefferson and amazingly got away with citing it to create the war on Christianity that Americans endure today. Who could have envisioned a squad of jack booted federal cops armed with sledgehammers destroying a copy of the Ten Commandments on a court house wall that had been erected before they were born? How could Americans tolerate a federal court ordering the destruction of a half century old Korean War monument in San Diego because a single atheist was offended by the 40 ft Cross?

 

[regent]

Speaking of things not in the Constitution, another one is the power of the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. And so it goes.

 

[Agit8r]

Jefferson's Constitutional accpmplishments were rather prosaic until modern left wing elites discovered that Jefferson might have concealed liberal concepts that weren't acknowledged in the greatest Document ever created. It was around mid-century when liberals found out that the under-educated media would have no objections if they could use Jefferson's private opinions to undermine the Constitution. When (mostly) Catholic religious private schools became popular in the 1930's the KKK and religious bigots were outraged about alleged "Papist" interference but they were powerless to stop the free expression of religious freedom in that pesky 1st Amendment. FDR appointed a former KKK member to the Supreme Court and he wrote the majority opinion in 1947 that created the modern version of the "separation of Church and state" that did not appear in the Constitution. Justice Black found an obscure out of context letter written by Thomas Jefferson and amazingly got away with citing it to create the war on Christianity that Americans endure today. Who could have envisioned a squad of jack booted federal cops armed with sledgehammers destroying a copy of the Ten Commandments on a court house wall that had been erected before they were born? How could Americans tolerate a federal court ordering the destruction of a half century old Korean War monument in San Diego because a single atheist was offended by the 40 ft Cross?

LMAO! What "obscure, out of context letter" did Hugo stumble upon?

I know you can't be talking about the letter to the Danbury Baptists, because that was cited half a century earlier, and Hugo could hardly be credited with influencing the Waite Court

' Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association... took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, — I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. '
-- Chief Justice Morrison Waite; from majority opinion Reynold v. United States