[Paradigm]

What's wrong with the Louisiana Purchase?

It was unconstitutional, according to Jefferson's own strict constructionist interpretation.

[Todd D.]

It was unconstitutional, according to Jefferson's own strict constructionist interpretation.

How so? Doesn't the Constitution grant the Federal Government the right to engage in treaties with foreign powers?

[Dave]

For the record Adonis, indentured servitude was actually far more brutal than slavery as it was in the self-interest of bondholders to get as much work out of their "servants" as possible before the contract expired, and thus indentured servants had a far higher mortality rate than slaves. It's estimated that as many as 75% of whites who came to the colonies between 1608-1775 were indentured servants. Blacks were indeed indentured servants in the same way until Virginia changed its law, in 1660 I believe, to turn them into slaves. I don't know what the motivations of this were, I would presume a mix of mercantile and humane interests.

[Paradigm]

How so? Doesn't the Constitution grant the Federal Government the right to engage in treaties with foreign powers?

Indeed it does, but Thomas Jefferson did not see it as granting such authority to the president without the approval of Congress.

[Zerogouki]

When it comes to signing treaties, the President only needs the consent of two-thirds of the Senate; the opinion of the House of Representatives is irrelevant. The Senate approved the treaty by 24 to 7.

It's totally legit.

[The Immortal Goon]

[quote=RONPAULALWAYS"]Libertarianism is just our modern word for good government. [/quote]

Typical Ron Paulite - just make a new definition for every word that's inconvenient and then argue that your interpretation in that specific instance is the only correct one.

I hope that I don't even need to touch on how absurd that is and how it could be used in almost any conceivable circumstance for almost anything that anybody considers "good."

The answer is no, he was not a Libertarian as such a thing didn't and could not exist at the time. In honesty, he would probably be somewhat horrified by the free reign given to commercial companies - whom Hamilton represented - at the expense of his base, the Yeoman farmer.

He said of commercial interests:

I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Jefferson was most certainly a libertarian. The Constitution he so strongly supported is as libertarian a document one can get.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Of course, none of this is not to say that Jefferson had no influence on Libertarianism, but it's putting the cart before the horse and looking at things backward to try and say the opposite. The same conditions that gave rise to libertarianism simply did not exist back then. It's the same mistake people make when they say that Jefferson was a Democrat and Lincoln was a Republican.

[RonPaulalways]

You can see that I clarified my claim, if you read the posts following the one you quoted. I acknowledged that my initial claim that libertarianism is just a modern word for good government is unsupportable, and that it's more accurate to say that what was considered 'good government' in the past can best be described as libertarianism today.

The answer is no, he was not a Libertarian as such a thing didn't and could not exist at the time. In honesty, he would probably be somewhat horrified by the free reign given to commercial companies - whom Hamilton represented - at the expense of his base, the Yeoman farmer.

He said of commercial interests:

Jefferson, 1816 letter to Logan wrote:
I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

If you read the quote in context, you can see he was referring to the power monied interests were exerting over government, not the degree of freedom they were afforded in business activities:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_ ... &Itemid=27

I received your favor of Oct. 16, at this place, where I pass much of my time, very distant from Monticello. I am quite astonished at the idea which seems to have got abroad; that I propose publishing something on the subject of religion, and this is said to have arisen from a letter of mine to my friend Charles Thompson, in which certainly there is no trace of such an idea. When we see religion split into so many thousand of sects, and I may say Christianity itself divided into it’s thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing and where the laws permit burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a [torn] man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all religion as expressed by it’s best preacher, “fear god and love thy neighbor” contains no mystery, needs no explanation. But this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes; priests could not live by it. Your idea of the moral obligations of governments are perfectly correct. The man who is dishonest as a statesman would be a dishonest man in any station. It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately. It is a great consolation to me that our government, as it cherishes most it’s duties to its own citizens, so is it the most exact in it’s moral conduct towards other nations. I do not believe that in the four administrations which have taken place, there has been a single instance of departure from good faith towards other nations. We may sometimes have mistaken our rights, or made an erroneous estimate of the actions of others, but no voluntary wrong can be imputed to us. In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phaenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it’s government and the probity of it’s citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it’s people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Present me respectfully to Mrs. Logan and accept yourself my friendly and respectful salutations.

[The Immortal Goon]

I did, I even posted a link to the full context.

Bluntly, I'm surprised a Libertarian would imply that the government should "crush in its birth" private companies and interests that challenge government power, but if you want to make up a new definition for libertarianism because of that, then I guess it's never stopped you before.

[Order]

Bluntly, I'm surprised a Libertarian would imply that the government should "crush in its birth" private companies and interests that challenge government power, but if you want to make up a new definition for libertarianism because of that, then I guess it's never stopped you before.

In fact, he doesn't only want to crush companies that challenge governmental authority but also those that could potentially do so.
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
The use of "in its birth" suggests that he expects the rise of larger "monied corporations" that might then threaten state power while the "which dare already" implies that at the moment one is only witnessing the first stirrings. He is generally distrustful of corporate power, not only of the one that is already manifesting itself in a negative manner.
Now this is not as surprisingly anti-libertarian as it seems. Jefferson was pre-industrial libertarian who lived in a largely egalitarian society of yeoman farmers. He naturally expected huge accumulations of social power (i.e. big corporations) to undermine this society.

[Zerogouki]

He wasn't talking about crushing all corporate power, though, only that which was powerful enough to either oppose or control the government.

[Order]

He wasn't talking about crushing all corporate power, though, only that which was powerful enough to either oppose or control the government.

Even though the amount of "corporate power" which existed in his lifetime was extremely limited he claimed to see its pernicious influence. Obviously not much was required in his opinion to reach the treshold.

[The Immortal Goon]

Now this is not as surprisingly anti-libertarian as it seems. Jefferson was pre-industrial libertarian who lived in a largely egalitarian society of yeoman farmers.

Well, this is it, isn't it? He wasn't really a libertarian because he was a pre-industrial libertarian who lived in a largely egalitarian society of yeoman (and slave) farmers.

Trying to cherry pick what you like from each founder is about all you can do, and that tends to make it so that you can apply virtually any ideology you want to them.

[Order]

Well, this is it, isn't it? He wasn't really a libertarian because he was a pre-industrial libertarian who lived in a largely egalitarian society of yeoman (and slave) farmers.

Trying to cherry pick what you like from each founder is about all you can do, and that tends to make it so that you can apply virtually any ideology you want to them.

I wouldn't go as far as that. In his time, he was a libertarian. We can hardly fault him for not holding libertarian views on things that didn't really exist or were so new that he couldn't really know much about them (like big corporations). But obviously, "What would Jefferson say" arguments are really just a projection of ones desires onto the past for legitimising purposes.

[RonPaulalways]

A couple points:

*'Corporation' had a more general meaning in the past than today. City governments, religious organizations, etc were often referred to as corporations. Given this, I'm not sure what the 'corporations' in the quote refers to.

*In the quote, he refers to the 'hereditary aristocracy' that had ruined England. He then goes to say that the aristocracy of the monied corporations should be crushed in its birth in the US:

It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it’s people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Given that a "hereditary aristocracy" requires government privileges, it's quite possible he was referring to the granting of privileges/monopolies by the government to special interests (e.g. the government granted monopoly over credit given to the Federal Reserve's member banks), and advocating that such efforts should be crushed.

[Order]

*'Corporation' had a more general meaning in the past than today. City governments, religious organizations, etc were often referred to as corporations. Given this, I'm not sure what the 'corporations' in the quote refers to.

I suppose that's why he said "monied corporations".

Given that a "hereditary aristocracy" requires government privileges, it's quite possible he was referring to the granting of privileges/monopolies by the government to special interests (e.g. the government granted monopoly over credit given to the Federal Reserve's member banks), and advocating that such efforts should be crushed.

First of all, that argument would only be correct if you knew for sure that Jefferson shared your assumptions about the granting of economic privileges to special interests. Assuming that however seems quite anachronistic considering Jefferson's (presumable) lack of knowledge about practical examples of corporate power. After all, in the 18th century it was a largely unheard of phenomenon, particularly in the United States.
To me, the explanation that he simply thought vast accumulations of social power are likely to survive, no matter what, is much more straightforward and plausible. In England, a wealthy, landed oligarchy ruled. Is it so far-fetched to expect that the development of a wealthy, corporate oligarchy might lead to the same result and undermine democracy? In fact, it seems like a very reasonable assumption for somebody who founded a republic in a largely egalitarian country. Not to mention that it is a common theme in enlightenment political theory. (Rousseau)
Also, he is talking about those corporations defying the law of the land, not trying to influence it which makes it unlikely that he was discussing lobbying efforts.

[RonPaulalways]

I suppose that's why he said "monied corporations".

Possibly, but other types of organizations like religious ones can be quite wealthy as well.

First of all, that argument would only be correct if you knew for sure that Jefferson shared your assumptions about the granting of economic privileges to special interests. Assuming that however seems quite anachronistic considering Jefferson's (presumable) lack of knowledge about practical examples of corporate power. After all, in the 18th century it was a largely unheard of phenomenon, particularly in the United States.

There were government monopolies granted to special interests back then, like the trade monopoly given to the East India company by the British government, so he would have been familiar with it. Jefferson himself was the leading opponent to the creation of a central bank, so he had some experience with special interests seeking government privilege.

Also, he is talking about those corporations defying the law of the land, not trying to influence it which makes it unlikely that he was discussing lobbying efforts.

Defying the law of the land could mean any thing. It could mean defying the law of public officials not accepting bribes. It could mean defying the Constitutional limits on government power and requirement that equal justice be granted to all.

Also, I want to point out that he said the aristocracy of the monied corporations should be crushed, not the monied corporations themselves. This in my view supports the theory that he's referring to special privileges granted to monied interests that he wants to abolished.

[Order]

Possibly, but other types of organizations like religious ones can be quite wealthy as well.

But would he then define them by their possession of money instead of their function? Seems somewhat unlikely, but yes, potentially possible.

There were government monopolies granted to special interests back then, like the trade monopoly given to the East India company by the British government, so he would have been familiar with it. Jefferson himself was the leading opponent to the creation of a central bank, so he had some experience with special interests seeking government privilege.

I don't think the British East India Company is a good example for an organisation leading the government, it was rather doing its bidding. Concerning the creation of a central bank I know that he was an opponent and I agree that the letter might be written in reaction to such attempts of special interests to get advantages but... see below.

Defying the law of the land could mean any thing. It could mean defying the law of public officials not accepting bribes. It could mean defying the Constitutional limits on government power and requirement that equal justice be granted to all.

Also, I want to point out that he said the aristocracy of the monied corporations should be crushed, not the monied corporations themselves. This in my view supports the theory that he's referring to special privileges granted to monied interests that he wants to abolished.

I don't think he necessarily saw a difference. Maybe he assumed that whenever such an "aristocracy" arises it automatically gets into the way of the law. After all, he does not distinguish between good and bad hereditary aristocracy either. For him (in this letter) it is the aristocracy which leads to chaos. Nothing more, nothing less. He might very well think that the survival of heredity is related to the aristocracy's acquisition of special perks but that doesn't mean he isn't generally opposed to all monied corporations. After all, if he thinks that vast accumulations of power necessarily lead to pernicious influence on the government, it is only likely that those perks follow in most instances. From such a position, it would be very reasonable to be against all accumulations of power in "monied corporations" because fighting "special interests" would only be a fight against the symptom, not the underlying cause.

[Zerogouki]

This part of the discussion is stupid. Speculation about what he meant by that quote is pointless.

[The Immortal Goon]

In his time, he was a libertarian.

He was also a radical socialist that believed in the power of professional revolutionaries to violently overthrow the social order. His arch-enemy was Hamilton, who was an ardent believer in the power of capitalism to make a better society. Jefferson advocated Ward Republics, which were about as close to a pre-industrial soviet system as you could possibly get.

Of course, that's a completely one sided argument that leaves nuances out, just like the argument that he was a libertarian.

Or even a Democrat, who probably have the best overall argument for claiming him as they can follow an unbroken lineage to Jefferson. But it's absurd to say that he would have had one opinion or another about auto workers and their relation to the North American Free Trade Agreement because the gap in knowledge between his death and now is too severe. Same as it's absurd to say to say that because the Republican Party does something now, Lincoln must have inspired it.

So, I guess in essence I agree with you that he was a libertarian in the sense that libertarians were influenced by some of what he said; it was so early on that almost every modern political ideology can do the same.

[Zerogouki]

Nonetheless, given the current political agendas of the two major parties, and given the platforms of the various minor parties, it's probably safe to say that if Jefferson were alive today, he'd most closely associate with the Libertarian Party. He would have hated socialized medicine, the progressive personal income tax, gun-control, and other ideas that define the left, and would have equally hated the hawkishness, corporate welfarism, and pro-Christian attitudes of the right. He would have disagreed with the LP about the amount of economic regulation that the government should impose, but that's about it.

His arch-enemy was Hamilton, who was an ardent believer in the power of capitalism to make a better society.

He opposed Hamilton not because Hamilton was pro-capitalist, but because Hamilton was pro-Central Bank and wanted a unitary state run by a monarchy.