Well...it's hard to know exactly what was on their minds at the time. I still say neither Adams nor Jefferson would enjoy seeing another American Revolution, not against a foreign power, but among its own people.
Perhaps. I think it's clear from those quotes they would have preferred peaceful secession, but remember that Thomas Jefferson was a big supporter of revolutions.
"Every generation needs a new revolution."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I started to search for historians' take on Jefferson's oft-quoted take on revolutions, and in my travels, I found this, which explains it perfectly. As usual, the right takes words out of context or select quotations to fit their agenda--in this case, trying to prove that if Jefferson approved of new revolutions, then it must be okay for today's Americans to take up arms against the sitting government. Wrong wrong wrong. That was never his intent.
Would the Founding Father recognize – Revolution, Civil disobedience, Battles, Armed and Dangerous – as the political discourse prevalent in our nation 220 years after the Constution was approved ? Hardly.
Thomas Jefferson would not appreciate having his words mangled and taken out of context. Jefferson never said or wrote 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,'; Jefferson did write to Abigail Adams in 1787 (Note : Jefferson was in France during 1787) “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."
So a number of thoughts.
First, it was written before the US Constitution was approved, and the Congress or President elected. America was still in its development.
Second, he clearly stated that “resistance” is based on “certain occasions” … in other words, a limited application. A “little rebellion” which is a vast difference from a “revolution” to overthrow the government. Today, peace protest marches have replaced armed rebellions.
Third, Jefferson eventually saw that the elective form of government was working and in 1806 wrote “In a country whose constitution is derived from the will of the people directly expressed by their free suffrages, where the principal executive functionaries and those of the legislature are renewed by them at short periods, where under the character of jurors they exercise in person the greatest portion of the judiciary powers, where the laws are consequently so formed and administered as to bear with equal weight and favor on all, restraining no man in the pursuits of honest industry and securing to every one the property which that acquires, it would not be supposed that any safeguards could be needed against insurrection or enterprise on the public peace or authority.”
In other words, voters should use the ballot box for protest Â… not insurrection.
Minnesota Central: What would Thomas Jefferson think of Bachmann and Coburn comments ?
Maggie,
If you call what you did research, you need to do much better. Linking to a personal blog about Jefferson and the subject of revolution, is not research.
The blog article you linked to, is incorrect. The writer gave you bad information. If you had taken the time to do your own research, you would have found that out. Instead, you found something that fit your position and posted it.
Thomas Jefferson did make the following quote.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson wrote the letter in 1787 to William Stephens.
"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787"
The question I asked is not moot. You brought the issue up. Now you don't want to answer. How convenient for you. Ignore the tough questions that expose the flawed position, while cutting and pasting things you haven't researched, so you can make a partisan jab statement.
