Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, he wasn't a "terrible president". The only questionable thing he actually did was the Embargo. And what should he have done instead?
Jefferson wasn't interested in industry, but he didn't attack industry, he just didn't want the government to actively sponsor industry. What industry wanted then, and what it still wants today, is grants, subsidies, and protections. It was the Hamiltonians who wanted to use the government to support industry on the basis that industry would support American "power".
Basically, Hamilton wanted to build an economic and military empire, he wasn't concerned about "freedom" of the individual. He wasn't concerned about virtues, or morals, or really anything. To Hamilton, it was all about power and greatness. He wanted to turn America into what it is today. An economic and military power, without a soul. A scumbag country full of arrogant scumbags, who think they are better than everyone else simply because they are richer and have the strongest military.
Basically, Jefferson wanted to prevent America from becoming the British Empire, and Hamilton loved the British Empire and wanted to emulate it near 100%.
Jefferson didn't want to make sure everyone would remain subsistence farmers. Jefferson wanted to make sure people could live completely independently if they wanted to. Because he believed that when people are dependent on the government or on the market, then they are never really free. And their servility makes them improper citizens. Instead of seeking to remain free, they will instead begin to demand more and more free stuff from others.
He wrote...
Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth. Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example. It is the mark set on those, who not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on the casualties and caprice of customers. Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition....
The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.
He also said, "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
In short, Jefferson believed that virtue was always and forever in those who were truly independent. And that, the cities were always and forever the reservoirs of corruption, greed, and immorality.
The Embargo was a bit more than questionable. Without any care about the American trade or livelihood lost, Jefferson effectively ended American export/import commerce. If anything, the Embargo hurt America much more than it did the UK or France, who had empires to draw on and simply redirected trade to South America or Asia. Our ships were being attacked, so instead of ramping up to defend them or making a powerful ally who could protect them, Jefferson's answer was "well if you're going to hurt our trade, we just wont trade with anyone" which not only showed his extreme lack of understand of economics, or the importance of trade, but also showed his total incompetence when it came to foreign policy. Madison actually did this; restricting trade on just the UK and making nice with France, which had the intended effect with Britain. We were going to have to fight a war to protect ourselves, it was just a matter of time.
In his attempt to enforce this embargo, Jefferson began a campaign against American businesses conducting warrentless searches, property seizures, and arrests. Not exactly personal liberty minded.
This wasn't one bill he signed and then later regretted. There were several supplements he added later, and the Embargo dominated US life for several years.
Are there any countries that "should" be proud of their history? I would be curious to hear about the one(s) that doesn't have a history that includes events that we would judge now as flawed.
I have to add although I do disagree with some of what is said here, I am quite impressed with the level of knowledge and the discourse displayed in the last half dozen posts.
Well done.
Nothing like listening to the loser descendents of the losers that the Europeans took this land from cry about it 400 years later.
I mean seriously, what a colossal waste of time. In America, ANYONE can be a success who is willing to work hard and learn from their mistakes. But we have this growing population of losers who have no marketable skills and are blaming their shortcomings on everyone else.
I have news for you, no one cares. Absolutely no one, not even these white liberal idiots who say all the right things. Deep down in their DNA? They think you're a loser too.
Nothing like listening to the loser descendents of the losers that the Europeans took this land from cry about it 400 years later.
I mean seriously, what a colossal waste of time. In America, ANYONE can be a success who is willing to work hard and learn from their mistakes. But we have this growing population of losers who have no marketable skills and are blaming their shortcomings on everyone else.
I have news for you, no one cares. Absolutely no one, not even these white liberal idiots who say all the right things. Deep down in their DNA? They think you're a loser too.
This statement is nothing but a vain attempt to kill the messengers
and drag their irrelevant personal fortunes or misfortunes into a more complex topic,
which has bearings far beyond how much "money" you have.
I really hate it when people say things like this because they not only presume
that "only losers" have a problem with what's happened and what will happen to
this country, but they also don't even know who they are talking about, yet
are so banal as to reduce serious philosophical and objective matters into
trivial subjective innuendo.
This statement is nothing but a vain attempt to kill the messengers
and drag their irrelevant personal fortunes or misfortunes into a more complex topic,
which has bearings far beyond how much "money" you have.
I really hate it when people say things like this because they not only presume
that "only losers" have a problem with what's happened and what will happen to
this country, but they also don't even know who they are talking about, yet
are so banal as to reduce serious philosophical and objective matters into
trivial subjective innuendo.
Uh; tho I don't catch all the words you're using: 1 group of "losers"; us "Irish", well WE stepped up and joined the "winner" column of life even tho we suffered terribly at the hands of the English less than 200 years ago. We changed; so can those other "beaten" cultures in the world.
Are there any countries that "should" be proud of their history? I would be curious to hear about the one(s) that doesn't have a history that includes events that we would judge now as flawed.
Great question. Let's pose that one to the OP.
What country or culture doesn't have some bad spots in its history?
Liberals just have a warped knowledge of religion and tend to interpret the Bible for their own needs....comparable to ISIS, progressive conservatives tend to do the same.
Liberals certainly use it as they see fit.
I'm a catholic who doesn't believe in the bible although I do love all the stories. I just don't believe all of them. It doesn't mean people who think like I do have a warped knowledge of religion.
The Embargo was a bit more than questionable. Without any care about the American trade or livelihood lost, Jefferson effectively ended American export/import commerce. If anything, the Embargo hurt America much more than it did the UK or France, who had empires to draw on and simply redirected trade to South America or Asia. Our ships were being attacked, so instead of ramping up to defend them or making a powerful ally who could protect them, Jefferson's answer was "well if you're going to hurt our trade, we just wont trade with anyone" which not only showed his extreme lack of understand of economics, or the importance of trade, but also showed his total incompetence when it came to foreign policy. Madison actually did this; restricting trade on just the UK and making nice with France, which had the intended effect with Britain. We were going to have to fight a war to protect ourselves, it was just a matter of time.
In his attempt to enforce this embargo, Jefferson began a campaign against American businesses conducting warrentless searches, property seizures, and arrests. Not exactly personal liberty minded.
This wasn't one bill he signed and then later regretted. There were several supplements he added later, and the Embargo dominated US life for several years.
Well, lets be fair. Both the British and the French had effectively declared that any "neutral" ship trading with the other power, could be seized. And not only the ship and cargo, but even the sailors. The British impressed thousands of American sailors, and seized hundreds of American ships.
The early impressment of American sailors was of "Naturalized Americans", who had been born British subjects. And the ships seized were all merchant vessels. What eventually caused the embargo act, was when the British Navy fired upon a US Naval vessel, the Chesapeake, right off the coast of Norfolk.
When Britain fired on a US Navy vessel, they were engaging in war itself(imagine Britain firing upon a US Navy vessel today). Jefferson was left in a very awkward position. Either he could do absolutely nothing, he could declare war on Britain for firing on a US Navy warship, or he could issue his embargo.
Your argument is that he should have done absolutely nothing. But was that even a political possibility under the circumstances?
Wasn't the embargo(and its very lax enforcement) the best choice? Wasn't the war of 1812 fought for the same reason Jefferson issued his embargo in 1807? Thus, without the embargo, wouldn't it just have been the "War of 1807"?
Had Jefferson remained president, would there have even been a war of 1812?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
