Were Thomas Jefferson Still Alive...

[Rudy]

Were Thomas Jefferson to be amongst us today, he would look at the citizens of the United States with great reproach due to the fact that Canada remains unconquered.

What else would he think?

Feel free to extend this to other persons and nations. Basically, what would various historical figures think about the state of the world today?

[TheLastMohican]

Similarly, Polk would wonder why we still haven't gotten around to picking a convenient fight with the rest of Mexico.

Teddy Roosevelt would look at Mount Rushmore and exclaim, "That's bully!"

John Adams would look at Mount Rushmore and wonder if they just hadn't gotten around to finishing his likeness yet.

Balboa would look at a globe and wonder how Spain managed to lose all that territory he went through the trouble of claiming.

[Pandemonium]

He would wonder why we have a fractional reserve system?

[Freedom Geek]

Holy shit airplanes! (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Monte314]

Yep... Manifest Destiny runs North and South, too. And eventually, up and down.

[LaoTzu]

He'd wonder why there are no usury laws

[Rudy]

He'd wonder why there are no usury laws

T.J. would? For what reason? If you mean for reasons related to Christian prohibitions against it, it was TJ who coined the term "wall of separation between church and state." He wanted religion completely out of politics. He was also a Deist, rather than a Christian, in his beliefs. All of this is well documented.

[PunkinA]

He'd be pissed his face is on the rarely used $2.00 bill.

He'd be even more pissed Hamilton was on the more utilized and more valuable ten spot.

[Rudy]

He'd be pissed his face is on the rarely used $2.00 bill.

He'd be even more pissed Hamilton was on the more utilized and more valuable ten spot.

Hah! "Don't feel so bad, TJ. Who's on Mount Rushmore? Who has a national monument? Who actually got to be president?"

[Fineline]

Locke would be upset that freedom of religion applies to atheists. I'd love for him to meet some of the less-mainstream religions, like Scientology or Wicca.

"Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist." -A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689

And he'd be impressed by airplanes, too!

[rara avis]

Ayn Rand would wonder why there hasn't been a boom in secret secessionist compounds in the Rockies over the past year.

(or have I just not received my invite, yet???) :suspicious:

[reb]

Jefferson would wonder how the genetics of this country became so limp to allow a government such as we have had for the last 90 years or so to exist:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[une fille]

Nietzsche would just stroke his 'stache thoughtfully while examining the decline of Christianity in the Western world and its subsequent descent into nihilism and amorality..!
"Ah, yes.. God is dead. Oh, and damn my sister and her Nazi boyfriend."

[True Rune]

T.J. would? For what reason? If you mean for reasons related to Christian prohibitions against it, it was TJ who coined the term "wall of separation between church and state." He wanted religion completely out of politics. He was also a Deist, rather than a Christian, in his beliefs. All of this is well documented.

I don't think that was realistic for the time. I mean there was controversy when it came to him being elected president. I do think TJ thought religion a nice thing to control the dumb people. (I wonder if he'd like Islam better)

[Lycurgus]

Jesus(es) would be impressed that (their/)his Cult of Personality had such prevalence so many years after (their/)his death.

Buddha would shake his head and offer us enlightenment, telling us to free ourselves from our desires... or something to that effect.

Hitler would cry for the decline of the Aryan Race... and blame the Jews.

Stalin would mourn the loss of his Workers Utopia... but he'd congratulate Castro on keeping his going so long.

Jefferson would be pissed that the federal government passed laws, and usurped so much power from the states. He'd be especially pissed about the Senate being directly elected rather than appointed... although the latter applies to almost every single founding father, if not the former as well.

There's more, but I can't really think of anything.

[Storm]

He'd be especially pissed about the Senate being directly elected rather than appointed... although the latter applies to almost every single founding father, if not the former as well.

Not a fan of the 17th amendment, Lycurgus?

[Lycurgus]

Not a fan of the 17th amendment, Lycurgus?It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. :yuck:

The Senate is there as a body of people representing the States themselves, not the people of the States, to prevent the Federal Government from overstepping, and taking more powers than it should.

[phej]

T.J. would? For what reason? If you mean for reasons related to Christian prohibitions against it, it was TJ who coined the term "wall of separation between church and state." He wanted religion completely out of politics. He was also a Deist, rather than a Christian, in his beliefs. All of this is well documented.

Huh? Usury laws are about limiting interest rates. Granted the Church didn't like interest (neither does Islam), but I don't get the logic from usury to religion.

[Lucid]

Yep... Manifest Destiny runs North and South, too. And eventually, up and down.

Thomas Jefferson had no concept of Manifest Destiny. This term didn't appear until the 1840s, about two decades after Jefferson's death.

Also, Jefferson was torn over the issue of the Louisiana Purchase because the constitution of the United States held no provision for the acquisition of new territory. He worried that doing so, even under the circumstances of the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. I think he may have been horrified by the idea of Manifest Destiny actually. Though, of course, we can never know.

[Rudy]

Thomas Jefferson had no concept of Manifest Destiny. This term didn't appear until the 1840s, about two decades after Jefferson's death.

Also, Jefferson was torn over the issue of the Louisiana Purchase because the constitution of the United States held no provision for the acquisition of new territory. He worried that doing so, even under the circumstances of the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. I think he may have been horrified by the idea of Manifest Destiny actually. Though, of course, we can never know.

I don't think he was horrified by Manifest Destiny at all. What bothered him was the huge amount of power this act of purchasing the Louisiana Territory implicitly granted to the Federal Government. He attempted to get an amendment to the Constitution passed, but there was no time to do so. So desperately did he want to increase the size of the U.S. that he was willing to compromise on his desire to minimize the power of the Federal Government.

[errrzarrr]

In the Dark Age Catholic Religion used to be the one that decide about what's Evil or Good, yes Evil or Good as a sin, in economic affairs. Priest used to interefere in economic issues and bussiness actions then, as they did with science, and still do.

In the middle Ages lending money and getting profit from it was seen as a sin, because church said so. Back then It was unmoral and punishable to lend 10 coins and later in time, lets say 5months later, getting those 10 coins plus 1 more coin as a payment for the risk he took, the time the lender waited and impossibility of using his own money in that time. That was called usure, originally a sin like any other.

Making the complex simple: In that age bussiness, marketing, banking, and economy in general was another catholic theologists's subject. And they were the undoubtable experts and authority in that issues. This is called chrematistic.

That kind of thinking was broken by Mercantilism ideology, mainly Spanish mercantilists. Near the years when American continent was discovered by Spanish Conquerors.

[Tragic Hero]

T.J. would? For what reason? If you mean for reasons related to Christian prohibitions against it, it was TJ who coined the term "wall of separation between church and state." He wanted religion completely out of politics. He was also a Deist, rather than a Christian, in his beliefs. All of this is well documented.

This post reminds me of something Rudy{not because you did it}. Why is it that some atheists, try so desperately to discredit religious beliefs of various good historical figures. And then try to discredit that some bad historical figures were atheist.
On this last point, Dawkins feels a need to make sure every knows that Hitler wasn't actually Atheist. Why does this matter? I have a suspicion that those who do it are trying to place atheists as superior to deists. It's funny that atheists rarely bring up Newton.

Can someone explain this to me..
Teddy Roosevelt would look at Mount Rushmore and exclaim, "That's bully!"

[Rudy]

This post reminds me of something Rudy{not because you did it}. Why is it that some atheists, try so desperately to discredit religious beliefs of various good historical figures.
This is usually, if not always, done in response to Christians, or other religious folks, claiming folks that do not belong to them. It is true that, for example, John Adams was a believing Christian. If, however, someone tries to claim Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Paine in that camp, I consider it my duty to correct them. George Washington is very difficult to say. He stopped attending mass completely later in life, and didn't speak about his religious beliefs at all, I don't think we can conclusively say whether he was a Deist or a Christian.

On this last point, Dawkins feels a need to make sure every knows that Hitler wasn't actually Atheist. Why does this matter? I have a suspicion that those who do it are trying to place atheists as superior to deists. It's funny that atheists rarely bring up Newton.
Everytime I've heard Dawkins do this, he's done it in response to someone using Hitler as an example of why atheism is bad. If someone says, "Atheism is bad because it produces people like Hitler; remember how nasty that guy was?," of course you're going to say, "Actually, Hitler wasn't an atheist."

Newton was kind of an asshole nutjob, in addition to being brilliant. He believed in all sorts of weird astrological stuff too, so I wouldn't be too eager to claim him as evidence for Christianity. It's a fallacy to use the beliefs of famous people as evidence for anything, actually, but if we're going to do it, I'm pretty happy with Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, etc., myself. The only contemporary practicing Christian scientist (as distinct from Christian Scientist,) that I am aware of, that has accomplished anything of note is Francis Collins (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

None of this, however, demonstrates anything. I never bother to try to "claim" people myself, only to correct false claims made about them.

[Tragic Hero]

I know mate. It is so absurd that we try to claim people to our camp and I shouldn't have posted what Dawkins does because you're right; I've only seen him do it in response to Christians{He does go to great pains in GD to not only cast doubt that Hitler was atheist but to try to prove he definately wasn"t}

I'm guilty of claiming people in my head. We have Sagan, not you Rudy. We also have Bertrand Russell. You have Sarah Silverman and Tobias Funke.

The reason I spoke of Newton is because he universally regarded as genius and so incredibly religious. I recently{last week} read up on Newton and was surprised about all of his 'unusualness'


Note: Russell wrote that "As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God."
Rudy, if you know what he wrote after that, just forget it; We're keeping him.

[Lucid]

I don't think he was horrified by Manifest Destiny at all. What bothered him was the huge amount of power this act of purchasing the Louisiana Territory implicitly granted to the Federal Government. He attempted to get an amendment to the Constitution passed, but there was no time to do so. So desperately did he want to increase the size of the U.S. that he was willing to compromise on his desire to minimize the power of the Federal Government.

Hmmm. Point taken. Regardless, he had no knowledge of Manifest Destiny.
And I don't think he was eager to increase the size of the US, so much as he feared that Spain and France would have the ability to block trade access to the port of New Orleans if he didn't go ahead with it.

[Indy]

I wonder what Karl Marx would say, seeing how his influence has been so dramatic during the 20th century and how he'd feel about 'capitalism' in this information age.

People seem to forget he wrote Das Kapital in 1867 and his insights into the economic system of the industrial age were quite relevant, especially on imperialism IMO.

There is statue of him and Engels in a nearby park here in Shanghai. They seem to look satisfied down on the kids and grandma's playing in front them. Interestingly, it stands next to some popular karaoke bars where all the 'bourgeoisie' are flaunting their new found wealth.

[Rudy]

We have Sagan, not you Rudy. We also have Bertrand Russell.
Really? I mean, I use Russell's description of a teapot agnostic to describe myself.

As you may know, Russell posited the idea of a fine china teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars. He pointed out that one cannot actually disprove such a thing, but to believe in it is absurd; he then likened that belief to belief in God. He called this being a teapot agnostic, which technically I am. In fact, every single atheist that I know in my life is also, technically, a teapot agnostic. Not one of them claims that God can be disproven, but they are also atheists, because they find the possibility extremely remote. Betrand Russell's article on "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)" describes my stance perfectly. He describes himself as an atheist to the common man because it is the only way to succinctly relate how he views belief in god.

Carl Sagan wrote one of my favorite books entitled "The Varieties of Scientific Experience." I highly recommend it if you have not read it. It reveals that his views are those of Bertrand Russell. Technically agnostic, de facto atheist.

The problem is if we assign the label of agnostic to anyone who admits that they cannot disprove the existence of a god, then there really aren't any atheists left, and the term becomes useless. It is a better use of language to reserve the label of agnostic to those who seriously consider the existence and non-existence of a god reasonably viable possibilities, and give the label of atheist to those who consider the existence of a god extraordinarily unlikely.

Thank you, at least, for not disputing Einstein.

RudyHenkel added to this post, because he's awesome like that.

Hmmm. Point taken. Regardless, he had no knowledge of Manifest Destiny.
And I don't think he was eager to increase the size of the US, so much as he feared that Spain and France would have the ability to block trade access to the port of New Orleans if he didn't go ahead with it.
You're correct that he feared Spain and France's power, but there is more to it than that. He often referred to North America becoming an "empire for liberty." He wanted the entire continent to become democratic republics, though he was not necessarily concerned that it belong to the United States. He would have been possibly just as happy had the Louisiana Territory become it's own republic, but since that was not an option, the expansion of the United States was a perfectly acceptable alternative.

One of his more interesting letters to James Madison on this topic of empire is here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and here's the excerpt of primary interest:

that he would give us the Floridas to withold intercourse with the residue of those colonies cannot be doubted. but that is no price; because they are ours in the first moment of the first war, & until a war they are of no particular necessity to us. but, altho' with difficulty, he will consent to our recieving Cuba into our union to prevent our aid to Mexico & the other provinces. that would be a price, & I would immediately erect a column on the Southernmost limit of Cuba & inscribe on it a Ne plus ultra as to us in that direction. we should then have only to include the North in our confederacy, which would be of course in the first war, and we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation: & I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government.

RudyHenkel added to this post, in order to rock your world.

I have to add, one more time for anyone reading, that this dispute over the beliefs of famous people does not demonstrate anything about the validity of the beliefs. Even if we could show that all practicing scientists were atheists (which is not the case,) this would at best show that a scientific mindset is incompatible with religious belief; it would not prove the non-existence of God.

[TheLastMohican]

I'm guilty of claiming people in my head. We have Sagan, not you Rudy. We also have Bertrand Russell. You have Sarah Silverman and Tobias Funke.


But Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris, so... you lose.

[Lucid]

Wait wait, is Rudy the atheist or TH? Carl Sagan was an atheist, but kind of falls under pantheism in that he was awestruck by the universe.


And yeah, Mike Huckabee is the lose.

[TheLastMohican]

And yeah, Mike Huckabee is the lose.

How can that be? He's
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Rudy]

Wait wait, is Rudy the atheist or TH?

I think TH is an agnostic, and wants to make a hard line differentiation between his position and that of atheism.

[ElstonGunn]

Wouldn't Jefferson say something like, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such rebellions. ...Uh, unless I happen to be in charge at that time. Then rebellions are bad."

[Rudy]

Wouldn't Jefferson say something like, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such rebellions. ...Uh, unless I happen to be in charge at that time. Then rebellions are bad."
Yes, he thought at least the threat of rebellion was necessary to keep government from too far overstepping its power. This does not mean, however, that he thought that government should step back and let actual rebels do whatever they wanted.

[ElstonGunn]

But do you really think anyone in power would want there to be a rebellion, or the threat of a rebellion, under his term in office? He made the "revolts are good" comment during the Whiskey Rebellion (or one of those early insurrections), while he was in France, far away from the reality of what he was talking about.

And when you think about it, what he's saying there is, "Yeah, we're going to try to overstep our authority (the authority we Founding Fathers gave ourselves), so a few poor soldiers and poor rebels will occasionally have to water the 'tree of liberty' with their blood. Because the system we set up encourages-- or at least does nothing to prevent-- power-grabbing on the part of the already entitled at the expense of the disenfranchised poor, Indians, women, and blacks."

I have a bias against most political figures, though. Especially ones who say that "all men are created equal," but won't set their slaves free because that would be inconvenient for him.

[reb]

in the perspective of the time (and in the perspective of some countries still) 'slaves' are not 'men'; this is what causes me to overlook Jefferson's flaws of spirit or cognizance. after all, we did NOT crucify him...until lately.

Rudy, i am somewhat shocked and awed that you reference Jefferson's letter and let it pass, and yet comment not on Jefferson's punctuation....

[Rudy]

And when you think about it, what he's saying there is, "Yeah, we're going to try to overstep our authority (the authority we Founding Fathers gave ourselves), so a few poor soldiers and poor rebels will occasionally have to water the 'tree of liberty' with their blood. Because the system we set up encourages-- or at least does nothing to prevent-- power-grabbing on the part of the already entitled at the expense of the disenfranchised poor, Indians, women, and blacks."

I think it was an excellent point of view. He made no pretensions about the fact that power corrupts. He knew that there was no way to build a system of government that would not corrupt those at the helm. He knew this, and hoped to counteract it with the threat of rebellion.

[LaoTzu]

T.J. would? For what reason?
"Now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered and beggared yeomanry."

I used the word 'usury' as an exaggeration... but Jefferson hated the idea that people would become enslaved by debts (probably because of his own issues with debts :P)

[ElstonGunn]

I think it was an excellent point of view. He made no pretensions about the fact that power corrupts. He knew that there was no way to build a system of government that would not corrupt those at the helm. He knew this, and hoped to counteract it with the threat of rebellion.

Right, but what I'm saying is that do you think he wanted there to be any rebellions between 1801 and 1809, years which were coincidentally about two decades after the end of the American Revolution? If I understand the quote of his that I adapted in a sarcastic way, he was basically saying, "We need a revolt every twenty years at most, just to keep the government from abusing its power." That's all well and good when it's a theory you're pulling out of your ass and you don't have to deal with the problems or the bloodshed directly, but what do you think he did during his presidency to encourage the necessary and justified revolts that he himself advocated years earlier?

[Bobert]

He'd be the oldest person in the world. Probably in a nursing home featured on 60 Minutes.

[Rudy]

That's all well and good when it's a theory you're pulling out of your ass and you don't have to deal with the problems or the bloodshed directly, but what do you think he did during his presidency to encourage the necessary and justified revolts that he himself advocated years earlier?

Jefferson never stipulated that encouraging or supporting rebellion was the responsibility of the government; he knew that government would always try and stop it. He considered it the responsibility of the populace to rebel if the government got out of hand. I'm afraid I'm just not seeing the hypocrisy that you obviously do.

[eternaltriangle]

If he were still alive I'd run this attack ad against him. Don't blame me, I voted for Adams!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(PS: Actually apart from my not being a citizen I probably couldn't vote in 1800. The basis on which electors were selected varied by district.)

(PPS: ignoring the above... if only there was a way I could vote for Burr and not Jefferson... Of course actually there was - in those days the VP was essentially whoever got the second most votes).

[ElstonGunn]

Jefferson never stipulated that encouraging or supporting rebellion was the responsibility of the government; he knew that government would always try and stop it. He considered it the responsibility of the populace to rebel if the government got out of hand. I'm afraid I'm just not seeing the hypocrisy that you obviously do.

He said that we need a rebellion every twenty years. Twenty years after the end of the American Revolution (a rebellion), he was president. According to what he said, the country was due for another rebellion by the time he got into office. At that point in time, did he still like the idea of having a revolt every 20 years, or would that have been and inconvenient detraction from the power he had as president? During the campaign of 1800, do you think he was thinking, "I hope I win, because based on what I said before, there should be a rebellion sometime soon, and I can't wait to deal with that, because I'm a patriot and revolts are good for the country"?

To me, it just sounds like saying "Hunger and disease are good because they eliminate the surplus population," but then going to the hospital and the breadline when those things actually affect you personally.

If he actually meant what you're saying-- that the people should rise against their rulers when they become oppressive-- that's one thing. Although even in that case, I'd have to wonder if that applies to slaves and Indians too, or just "all men." But either way, I don't understand how he could write off revolts by saying, "Nah, it's no big deal. I hope we have one of these every 20 years." That part bothers me. The "God forbid we go twenty years without a rebellion." He's basically advocating that the government abuse its power until it finally pushes the lower classes too far.

[LaoTzu]

He also said debts should be forgiven every 19 years

Coincidence? .... :P

[JeffersonFawkes]

Were Thomas Jefferson to be amongst us today, he would look at the citizens of the United States with great reproach due to the fact that Canada remains unconquered.

What else would he think?

Feel free to extend this to other persons and nations. Basically, what would various historical figures think about the state of the world today?

I'm more wondering how long would it be before he was declared a dangerous leader of the militia movement, and terrorist threat to national security, or deported for not having his papers.

[Rudy]

He said that we need a rebellion every twenty years. Twenty years after the end of the American Revolution (a rebellion), he was president. According to what he said, the country was due for another rebellion by the time he got into office. At that point in time, did he still like the idea of having a revolt every 20 years, or would that have been and inconvenient detraction from the power he had as president? During the campaign of 1800, do you think he was thinking, "I hope I win, because based on what I said before, there should be a rebellion sometime soon, and I can't wait to deal with that, because I'm a patriot and revolts are good for the country"?
The 20 years figure was not intended to run like clockwork, but rather that was his estimate of how often, on average, the government would seriously overstep its bounds to the point where a rebellion was necessary. I don't think he was hopping up and down like a giddy schoolboy going "Rebellion! Rebellion! Rebellion on my watch!", no. I do think that he would want the people to revolt if he overstepped his authority too far, however.

To me, it just sounds like saying "Hunger and disease are good because they eliminate the surplus population," but then going to the hospital and the breadline when those things actually affect you personally.
Yeah, I don't see that at all; sorry.

If he actually meant what you're saying-- that the people should rise against their rulers when they become oppressive-- that's one thing. Although even in that case, I'd have to wonder if that applies to slaves and Indians too, or just "all men."

As far as Indians, Jefferson said that he viewed them the equal in mind and body to the white man, saying that they only needed proper education (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and wanted them adopted into the United States. When it comes to slaves, yes, his unfortunate attitude towards slavery (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) was Jefferson's most fatal flaw. We all know that.

But either way, I don't understand how he could write off revolts by saying, "Nah, it's no big deal. I hope we have one of these every 20 years." That part bothers me. The "God forbid we go twenty years without a rebellion." He's basically advocating that the government abuse its power until it finally pushes the lower classes too far.

I don't think he was saying that's it's "no big deal" at all, nor was he advocating that government abuse its power. Rather, he saw it as inevitable that the government would abuse its power, and that there was nothing that could be done internally to prevent this. He thought the government just agreeing not to abuse its power was a laughably naive idea. Thus, he saw rebellion as the only practical counterbalance.

[LaoTzu]

So what are we waiting for?!!

REBELLION!!!

[JeffersonFawkes]

So what are we waiting for?!!

REBELLION!!!

and than what? Write out the type of government you want before you have to do a rush job. Right now if the americans had a revolution, it strikes me more likely as turning into the french revolution than in to another 76. We don't need that much blood shed.

[Maayan]

Were Uncle Sam's creators still alive, they'd be unnerved to know that there's a cheapskate tourist café in Moscow named after him:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Colonel Sanders would be just as pleased to discover that the Russians are scarfing down his chicken.

[Night Runner]

Yeah, but it says American Uncle Sam's Cafe - if anything, it's a homage. :)

[Lycurgus]

Mao would be pissed about the state of affairs in China.

[Indy]

Nostradamus would probably say: "I told you so!"

[Rudy]

Nostradamus would probably say: "I told you so!"

And then we'd all laugh at him for thinking that his incredibly vague prophecies were worth anything. :)