Did Jefferson support non interventionism or did he support bombing the world to make it safe for democracy? I've read that the former was Jefferson's foreign policy, and that the latter was purely wilson's... However, I recently read about the empire of liberty and it sounds like it advocates bombing the hell out of the world's population to make the world safe for democracy, so I'm quite discombobulated.
There was jacksonian foreign policy which believed that America was at risk if americans didn't conquer the world, but that's different than the wilsonian foreign policy.
He supported Americans bringing "civilization" to the barbarians. In this regard he is the proto-Wilisonian or you can say that Wilson was something akin to a Jeffersonian in foreign policy. Perhaps a little more zealous then Jefferson though.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
@Andrew Cain: What an absurd comparison...
@OP: Do you know anything about the history of American foreign policy?
I recently read about the empire of liberty and it sounds like it advocates bombing the hell out of the world's population
What the fuck did you read? Not to point out the anachronism, but "bombs" as you use the term, weren't a thing...
You seem "discombobulated" because you haven't absorbed a coherent history of foreign policy actions and circumstances. If you cannot tell the differences between Jefferson and Wilson you need to read more. For God's sake, Jefferson avoided war even though the Congress was begging for him to act on their zeal. Madison is the one who acted on a declaration of war and got the Capital burned down (not to mention the farms and churches all over the states)...
Wilson decived people into thinking he was peaceful, but it was WILSON who turned WWI into a "world" war. If the US wouldn't have been involved the war would have been contained to one continent (arguably two). It is Wilson who popularized the concept of what (I) some people refer to as world government...Jefferson, more than likely, would have liked the U.S. to have split. It was his concept Nullification that the Southern politicians used as justification to secede, after all (Madison had a similar, but much harder to achieve political notion of secession).
Have you ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine (even though it was J.Q. Adams that wrote it)? It was written after Jefferson's terms and it was what declared that the U.S. would turn hostile toward nations attempting to influence the Americas (both of them).
Don't go all libertarian with history either. "Oh, well if he really cared about property or freedom he should/would have...yada yada." Jefferson was the most radical (other than (Paine who wanted certain religions taxed in VA; Madison and Jefferson stopped this) and a few of the SoL) Founder bent on liberty as an end. His wantings to "expand" the empire were merely reflections of limiting and diminishing the power of the British. And, yes, the common view of "barbarian" 250 years ago was anyone who couldn't speak Latin...if you couldn't speak Latin, you couldn't know the Bible. Jefferson himself despised this notion (he abolished the Indian re-education portion of W&M while Governor), but he did use the same language and terminology to express his ideas.
"What an absurd comparison.."
Not at all. Both believed that Americanism should be spread to counter-act a perceived threat. For Jefferson it was Britian, for Wilson it was militant European monarchies. Wilson was just more self-righteous about it, hence my zealousness comment. Both believed in a frontier-like thesis. For Jefferson it was Benjamin Rush's comments on developing a frontier, for Wilson it was Frederick Jackson Turner. In both theses the premise is that a frontier presents a machination that is required for a developing people. In Benjamin Rush's writings, Jefferson liked the first stage of development, the agrarian stage in which squatters who were sympathetic to Jeffersonian ideals would tame the land and work it. It represented the independent man, a man who was self-sufficient and was not tainted by mercantile notions like Hamiltonian Federalists. For Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis, Wilson believed that the frontier acted as a safety value for the social upheaval of the late 19th century. He also believed the frontier was the basis for American values such as independence and liberty. What it meant to be American could be best represented by frontier life according to Wilson and that is why he was so attached to Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis. A thesis that demanded a new frontier for continued American development, especially economic development that so happened to coincide with Theodore Roosevelt's (and others) policy of extending American economic dominance into Eastern markets such as China. And do you know who wanted to open the quickest trade route to China? Thomas Jefferson!
History is fun...isn't it?
Both believed that Americanism should be spread to counter-act a perceived threat.
This is the basis of every american politician, first of all. Second, Jefferson's notions of secession (he stated that he thought we would end up with two or three different unions in North America) are completely at odds with the concept of "spreading americanism." Unless by Americanism you mean federated republics...which is in no way the same as expanding corporate dominance (as per the post 1886 US economy). Really in the stages of paradigm shifts in US history the ones after the civil war are almost impossible to compare to the pre-civil war paradigms. The corporate dominated economy was never even known to Jefferson. States could still de-charter corporations (virtually) at will during his day. TR and Wilson helped develop it to what it is today. (Most of my post was directed at the OP's comment about Jefferson supporting the bombing of other people in the world; something patently untrue, but that could be said about TR and Wilson).
Both believed that Americanism should be spread to counter-act a perceived threat. For Jefferson it was Britian, for Wilson it was militant European monarchies.
Oh yeah? So this makes them identical? So the British bankers that had their hands in Wilson's administration didn't have anything to do with our allying with them? It was all about Wilson's "ideals." "The 14 points" is all that matters? The focus on words in politics is absurd. Rarely does rhetoric flesh out into exact motivations anyway. And, if anything, rhetoric is there is disguise what true motivations are..
It represented the independent man, a man who was self-sufficient and was not tainted by mercantile notions like Hamiltonian Federalists.
Jefferson supported secessionism and Wilson world government. Wilson's economy was mercantilist. Jefferson is the one responsible for the intellectual defense against the mercanitlists. Just like every fucking generation of American politicians, after the first, they use the words of the founders to backstop their own ambitions. Jefferson was not at all like Wilson in this regard.
Frederick Jackson Turner's economy was heavy into railroads and production. The massive amounts of production happening at that time is the reason why american businessmen felt the need to expand markets. Not because they wanted to expand "americanism", but "profitism."
You say that since Jefferson wanted to trade with China that that is equivalent of TR misdeeds (United Fruit, National city bank, etc.)? That is absurd. Jefferson is the one who wanted to prevent corporate/state monopolies in the Federal law. TR helped the monopolies that sprung up after the Santa Clara decision.
And what is wrong with trading with the Orient? I don't recall Jefferson telling anyone to send the military over there to help the banks... (Don't even compare Nat. City in China to Jefferson in Tripoli. The circumstances for Jefferson were defensive, but the later century was offensive.)
Not if rhetoric is placed as the foundation of observation and circumstances of actions are ignored.
"This is the basis of every american politician, first of all. Second, Jefferson's notions of secession (he stated that he thought we would end up with two or three different unions in North America) are completely at odds with the concept of "spreading americanism." Unless by Americanism you mean federated republics...which is in no way the same as expanding corporate dominance (as per the post 1886 US economy). Really in the stages of paradigm shifts in US history the ones after the civil war are almost impossible to compare to the pre-civil war paradigms. The corporate dominated economy was never even known to Jefferson. States could still de-charted corporations at will during his day. TR and Wilson helped develop it to what it is today. (Most of my post was directed at the OP's comment about Jefferson supporting the bombing of other people in the world; something patently untrue.)"
Secession is not at odds with Americanism. In fact it has nothing to do with it in relation to the topic we are discussing. I do not know why you brought secession up. You think corporate dominance is a post-civil war dilemma, why? State government established price fixing before the civil war on multiple commodities such as corn, liquor, wine, tobacco and various food items. Licensing was in effect on various stores such as taverns. Tariffs on molasses. Trade embargoes with Britain. Honestly, what in the gilded age do you not see in the early Republic? The OP did not make a comment about Jefferson wanting to bomb people. He asked a question. Notice the question mark at the end of the first sentence. So far all you have done is deride him and use unnecessary foul language. Be better then this.
"Oh yeah? So this makes them identical? So the British bankers that had their hands in Wilson's administration didn't have anything to do with our allying with them? It was all about Wilson's "ideals." "The 14 points" is all that matters? The focus on words in politics is absurd. Rarely does rhetoric flesh out into exact motivations anyway. And, if anything, rhetoric is there is disguise what true motivations are.."
Could this point about rhetoric as a disguise not be applied to Jefferson and his concept of Empire of Liberty? Jefferson had principles, just like every other individual. Wilson and Jefferson are not identical. I never claimed they were. Similarities does not make one identical. We are both similar in that we are human beings but that does not make us identical human beings.
"Jefferson supported secessionism and Wilson world government. Wilson's economy was mercantilist. Jefferson is the one responsible for the intellectual defense against the mercanitlists. Just like every fucking generation of American politicians, after the first, they use the words of the founders to backstop their own ambitions. Jefferson was not at all like Wilson in this regard."
Again, we arrive at rhetoric. I do not need to rehash an old point but I would like to remind you that Jefferson did establish trade embargoes and tariffs during his presidency. I think you exaggerate his "role" in defense against mercantilist policies.
"Frederick Jackson Turner's economy was heavy into railroads and production. The massive amounts of production happening at that time is the reason why american businessmen felt the need to expand markets. Not because they wanted to expand "americanism", but "profitism.""
Oh please, mercantilism was around long before railroads and "production," whatever you mean by that. The "Americanism" is at the heart of the empire building during the late 19th century. America was suppose to be the guiding light of the world because they were the Anglo-Saxon race, or the Protestant faith, or because they were the emerging economic power. Take your pick. Brooks Adams (Funny how the grandson of John Quincy Adams, who you admitted wrote the Monroe Doctrine which he did) would be the man who advocated that the winds of progress had reached the United States and it was now being called by destiny to lead the world into a new age of economy where the United States would lead the world market. If that does not smack of Americanism then I do not think I am talking to a sane audience.
"You say that since Jefferson wanted to trade with China that that is equivalent of TR misdeeds (United Fruit, National city bank, etc.)? That is absurd. Jefferson is the one who wanted to prevent corporate/state monopolies in the Federal law. TR helped the monopolies that sprung up after the Santa Clara decision."
It has nothing to do with trust-busting and monopolies. It has everything to do with extending economic power abroad. Jefferson and TR were after the same target. The target being the China market. The perceived limitless consumers. One of the differences is simply that TR made more progress toward this goal then Jefferson in the sense that TR actually helped conquer foreign countries such as Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines in order to reach the Chinese market. Jefferson had a more difficult time because even during his presidency the frontier was considered places like Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky etc. The Spanish had settled the western coast and Boston traders did trade for otter pelts and tallow in California but it was much more time consuming to go around South America because there was no Panama canal.
"And what is wrong with trading with the Orient? I don't recall Jefferson telling anyone to send the military over there to help the banks..."
No, he was too busy waging war on the Barbary pirates and really the Chinese already had a military on their lands. They were the British. In a few decades the Opium wars would start and..what a surprise Commodore Perry would show up in Japan opening Japan up to Western trade throughout the land and no longer just in the port of Nagasaki which only the Dutch were allowed.
The OP did not make a comment about Jefferson wanting to bomb people. He asked a question.
Yes, he did.
I recently read about the empire of liberty and it sounds like it advocates bombing the hell out of the world's population to make the world safe for democracy
Be better then this.
Um, at what point in time is "this." Oh, no you said "then" instead of "than." I know you will say it was an 'honest mistake', but I know too many people who make that mistake everytime to buy it...It is not a simple spelling error. Don't tell me what fucking language to use, either.
Jefferson had a more difficult time because even during his presidency the frontier was considered places like Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky etc.
Except, Virginia handed over the land for all of those states peacefully. Why would Jefferson have had a difficult time because of this?
I think you exaggerate his "role" in defense against mercantilist policies.
Well, his "role" was introducing French economics to the US, which was being run by the heavily favored British policies.
The "Americanism" is at the heart of the empire building during the late 19th century.
Exactly, the late 19th century. I didn't try to say otherwise. Nor did I claim that mercantilism was "new.." I said that Jefferson didn't support the corporatization of the world in the name of America. He did, however, promote extending the republicanism of America (the same republicanism that was destroyed during the civil war and shortly after corporations were taken at the Federal level instead of the state.)
America was suppose to be the guiding light of the world because they were the Anglo-Saxon race, or the Protestant faith, or because they were the emerging economic power.
Okay...umm, how does this relate to Jefferson? Have you read Bacon's "New Atlantis" (it is short if you want to read it now)? It had a huge influence on Jefferson and it focused on the development of science. That is what Jefferson envisioned, not corporatist expansion through warfare.
Brooks Adams (Funny how the grandson of John Quincy Adams, who you admitted wrote the Monroe Doctrine which he did) would be the man who advocated that the winds of progress had reached the United States and it was now being called by destiny to lead the world into a new age of economy where the United States would lead the world market. If that does not smack of Americanism then I do not think I am talking to a sane audience.
I admitted? What did you think I was getting at?
I also like how you slid a snide comment in there in the same post that you told me not to do that.
Jefferson and TR were after the same target. The target being the China market. The perceived limitless consumers.
But, Jefferson's vision was not at all developed under the same circumstances as TR. TR knew that the US was one economic powerhouse, Jefferson died thinking we would be split up. That is my point. You cannot compare them and say they were "after the same thing" if that "same thing" is as broad as trade with a foreign country. What foreign countries did Jefferson help to "conquer?" I'd also like to see a cite of Jefferson saying that he wished to find "limitless consumers."
One of the differences is simply that TR made more progress toward this goal then Jefferson in the sense that TR actually helped conquer foreign countries such as Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines in order to reach the Chinese market.
You imply that Jefferson had this mentality, which I sincerely doubt. Oh, and you used "then" instead of "than" again. If you understand English syntax "then" your sentence doesn't make any sense. maybe, I should tell you what language to use. Be better than that. ("Than" is comparative. "Then" is temporal.)
No, he was too busy waging war on the Barbary pirates
Even after I told you not to bother comparing them due to circumstance....you did it anyway. I already knew that was the line of reasoning that you were using. You are abusing context. Jefferson did that because merchant ships were being hijacked not because banks wanted to control resources there.
@aristophanes: I've always believed that Jefferson was not a democratic peace theorist (which states you need to bomb the hell out of people to make them pro-democracy) like wilson was and that jefferson was anti war. I even believe that Jefferson inspired Cleveland and van buren to be non interventionist. However, Wikipedia's article on empire of liberty makes him sound like a neocon so that is why I asked... it seems to me to paint a very different picture of Jefferson. I'm assuming it is bunk, but I came here to ask.
All of that said, you made some good arguments that have helped me conclude that the article (or at least my interpretation) of it was bunk. In particular, your argument about banking and mercantilism pretty much concluded that Jefferson was not and could not be a neocon... that is, Jefferson would have favored a mint and a central bank if he was an imperialist democratic peace theorist.
"Um, at what point in time is "this." Oh, no you said "then" instead of "than." I know you will say it was an 'honest mistake', but I know too many people who make that mistake everytime to buy it...It is not a simple spelling error. Don't tell me what fucking language to use, either."
This is not necessarily a point in time but could be applied to a condition. I meant this as you being in the present state of unnecessary aggression. You are right though in saying I should of used than. I think you should have understood the sentiment more than the correctness though.
"Except, Virginia handed over the land for all of those states peacefully. Why would Jefferson have had a difficult time because of this?"
So are you asking why Thomas Jefferson would have a more difficult time reaching the Chinese market in the early 19th century? I just want to be sure if that is what you are asking. Virginia did not really "hand over" land per say. The territories were established by early Ordinance acts. A lot of states claimed territory that extended into the frontier. Virginia was one, Pennsylvania another. Anyways that is another topic. If you are asking why would Jefferson have a difficult time during his presidency because the frontier only extended to places like Ohio then you are missing the point I was trying to make. American development only extended to the Ohio valley during Jefferson's administration therefore it would be naturally difficult to have a presence on the western coast. The frontier was geographical cut off from the eastern seaboard unless one went down to New Orleans and sailed to the coast. This holds true until the development of canals like the Ohio and Erie canal, railroads and telegraph system which helped quicken transportation. Do you understand what I mean now?
"Well, his "role" was introducing French economics to the US, which was being run by the heavily favored British policies."
By creating embargoes and tariffs, quite a introduction.
"Exactly, the late 19th century. I didn't try to say otherwise. Nor did I claim that mercantilism was "new.." I said that Jefferson didn't support the corporatization of the world in the name of America. He did, however, promote extending the republicanism of America (the same republicanism that was destroyed during the civil war and shortly after corporations were taken at the Federal level instead of the state.)"
Actually you said it was not "Americanism," it was "profitism"
See:
"Not because they wanted to expand "americanism", but "profitism.""
Anyways, Jefferson did not want to "corporatize" the world. He wanted to "agarianize" it, if such a term can be used, because farming respresented the perfect lifestyle. Self-sufficency, independence. I mean he was not completely against industrialism but not to the point that say a Hamiltonian would be. Again you are trying to play that "identical game." You are comparing Jefferson exactly to Roosevelt and since they are not identical, you are dismissing any similarities.
"Okay...umm, how does this relate to Jefferson? Have you read Bacon's "New Atlantis" (it is short if you want to read it now)? It had a huge influence on Jefferson and it focused on the development of science. That is what Jefferson envisioned, not corporatist expansion through warfare."
It has many similarities with Jefferson's "Americanism." At its heart it still holds the nationalistic notion that America is something of a bulwark against dark powers. America through some facet is meant to influence world events and establish its dominance for benevolent purposes. Joseph Stromberg touched lightly on this in one of his lectures though I cannot recall off the topic of my head. It is this millennialist notion that the American revolution must continue around the world. A millennialist notion that in many ways continued onto the Gilded age. I think it is fascinating stuff and really the world we have today in terms of social norms is established in the early 19th century. Things like gender roles, social perceptions on race, views on criminal punishment, culinary culture.
"I admitted? What did you think I was getting at?
I also like how you slid a snide comment in there in the same post that you told me not to do that."
I was just trying to make you feel like you made a good point. I was being sardonic before and I have a bad habit of doing that. I am trying to break it though.
"But, Jefferson's vision was not at all developed under the same circumstances as TR. TR knew that the US was one economic powerhouse, Jefferson died thinking we would be split up. That is my point. You cannot compare them and say they were "after the same thing" if that "same thing" is as broad as trade with a foreign country. What foreign countries did Jefferson help to "conquer?" I'd also like to see a cite of Jefferson saying that he wished to find "limitless consumers.""
America as an economic powerhouse was really only coming to fruition before World War I because of things like the Panic of 1893. It was still rocky for the US even though the industrial revolution came after the war. I would say it started with the winning of the Spanish-American war because America cemented its sphere of influence in the Americas. On the topic of Jefferson conquering countries, it would depend upon what you mean by conquer. Jefferson had a stadial view of history and saw the Indians as something akin to children who needed to be guided toward progress. Remember that "Empire of Liberty" and how it will bring "civilization" to barbarians. Jefferson was not as zealous as say Andrew Jackson in terms of Indian relations but he was not against giving them the "tomahawk" when he felt they deserved it. So I guess one could say that Jefferson fostered an environment in which Indians were seen as lesser-beings and when Indians no longer fit the stadial method it turned into a racial hatred. I mean you cannot blame Jefferson for people racially mistreating Indians. It is like the hypocrisy in thinking that all are endowed with natural rights but being nonchalant about slavery. Concerning the limitless consumers portion, here is a really good article on diplomatic history journal.
http://harvard.academia.edu/macabe/Papers/287277/_Anglo-American_Rivalry_and_the_Origins_of_U.S._China_Policy_
"You imply that Jefferson had this mentality, which I sincerely doubt. Oh, and you used "then" instead of "than" again. If you understand English syntax "then" your sentence doesn't make any sense. maybe, I should tell you what language to use. Be better than that. ("Than" is comparative. "Then" is temporal.)"
That Americanism should be spread to combat a perceived threat, yes, I do imply that. You admitted it earlier when you talked about how Jefferson was trying to combat the British. See I am making you feel included. For Roosevelt, it was more of a perceived lost of manhood for America. America needed another glorious scrap like the Civil War because it was becoming too "blubbery." For Wilson, it was, like I said before, the perceived threat of backward civilization. America was progress. Monarchy was regression. Also, stop being so petty with the proof reading.
"Even after I told you not to bother comparing them due to circumstance....you did it anyway. I already knew that was the line of reasoning that you were using. You are abusing context. Jefferson did that because merchant ships were being hijacked not because banks wanted to control resources there."
You were reminiscing about how Jefferson never sent the military over to China. I told you why he did not do that. He was more focused on the Barbary pirates and the British already had a military over in China. The American navy is a handful of ships at this point in time. I wonder if it can even be called a navy and I do not feel like I am exaggerating by saying that. I mean they had little skooners that patrolled the coast and that actually reminds me of John Randolph of Roanoke who worked against navy bills during the War of 1812 because he felt they would be used to extend American dominance beyond its borders. Old Randolph trying to be the wet-blanket of Congress. Ha!
"All of that said, you made some good arguments that have helped me conclude that the article (or at least my interpretation) of it was bunk. In particular, your argument about banking and mercantilism pretty much concluded that Jefferson was not and could not be a neocon... that is, Jefferson would have favored a mint and a central bank if he was an imperialist democratic peace theorist."
Not necessarily. You can be an imperialist and be against central banking. Being one does not exclude the other. Take for example William Graham Sumner. Very much against the U.S. invasion of the Philippines but not against U.S. economic hegemony. Even imperialism can come in degrees. It is not so "black and white." I mean of all the Anti-Imperialist League in the late 19th century, very few were consistenly against imperialism. Some were for the take over of Hawaii but against the Philippines and Cuba. Some were against it all. Some changed their mind etc. etc.
Two things: (1) I was referring to Jefferson's changes in the University system in VA, not his actions in office. (I made this very clear) (2) "quite 'an' introduction" is correct.
You are still abusing context. "Americanism" is what you refered to as being the same concept almost an entire century apart. My point was that too much had happened in the interim for that to be the case. Jefferson's "americanism" (spreading republican values) is differnt that TR's "Americanism" as spreading corporate dominance (which I termed "profitism.)
I'm done talking to you if you aren't willing to distinguish between basic concepts like "time."
Again you are trying to play that "identical game." You are comparing Jefferson exactly to Roosevelt and since they are not identical, you are dismissing any similarities.
This isn't true. I am pointing out the variations, I am ceding the overall point of expansionism, but pointing out their goals in that expansion weren't at all similar.
America as an economic powerhouse was really only coming to fruition before World War I because of things like the Panic of 1893.
Yeah, this makes sense.
Jefferson had a stadial view of history and saw the Indians as something akin to children who needed to be guided toward progress. Remember that "Empire of Liberty" and how it will bring "civilization" to barbarians. Jefferson was not as zealous as say Andrew Jackson in terms of Indian relations but he was not against giving them the "tomahawk" when he felt they deserved it.
Have you ever read Jefferson on the Natives? When you say 'give them the tomahawk' you are refering to contract law and the natives ignorance of it, right? Jefferson states several times in his letters that the Indians are just as smart as the Europeans and that contracts will be required to get things from them. Jackson was an outward racist. I don't think Jefferson was. Jefferson didn't even think Jackson was fit for President.
So I guess one could say that Jefferson fostered an environment in which Indians were seen as lesser-beings and when Indians no longer fit the stadial method it turned into a racial hatred.
No, you cannot. He explicitly stated that we were to use contract law and fine print (Machiavellian tactics) in order to secure the land we wanted. This is precisely because he was not racist (as racist) towards them...what don't you get about this?
I mean you cannot blame Jefferson for people racially mistreating Indians. It is like the hypocrisy in thinking that all are endowed with natural rights but being nonchalant about slavery.
Your subjects and action verbs are all over the place. I'll read that paper in a little bit.
See I am making you feel included.
Certainly not in your English classes, amirite?
Also, stop being so petty with the proof reading.
No, learn to write. If I wasn't versed in English (say, a foreigner) I wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of what you are saying. You will refer to one thing in one sentence , THEN, with no indication switch subjects and points to a totally different topic. It is like chaos verbiage. Language is uniform so that everyone can understand it.
You were reminiscing about how Jefferson never sent the military over to China. I told you why he did not do that. He was more focused on the Barbary pirates and the British already had a military over in China.
You aren't very sharp, are you? My initial mention was not "reminiscing about how Jefferson never sent the military over to China." My point was that the motivations for Jefferson sending military forces to Tripoli was based on defense of trade. My reference to China was not framed in the time of Jefferson, but that of TR and Wilson; I refer to the U.S. military ventures in China on behalf of National City Bank. They are not even close to being the same in terms of motivation and hence my saying that comparing them is unproductive, but since that is all you can think about with those "dipshit blinders" you seem to have sewn on to your face, I predicted that you would go down that road. You did go down that road and still don't get why I intiailly told you it was useless.
"Two thihngs: (1) I wa referring to Jefferson's changes in the University system in VA, not his actions in office. (2) "quite 'an'introduction" is correct."
Ah so you think Jefferson made an greater introduction of economic theory in his changes of the university system (could you explain what they were so I better understand you) than as the commander and chief, head of foreign diplomacy? Ah there I go again being flippant. I swear I need to stop but it's like a disease.
"You are still abusing context. "Americanism" is what you refered to as being the same concept almost an entire century apart. My point was that too much had happened in the interim for that to be the case. Jefferson's "americanism" (spreading republican values) is differnt that TR's "Americanism" as spreading corporate dominance (which I termed "profitism.)"
Because it spans almost an entire century. It is the same notion, just different reasons for it to transpire. America is destined to be the city upon a hill. John Winthrop wrote that in the early 17th century. Reagan said that in the 1980s. Different reasons for being that city but it is still the same notion that America is bound for greatness. I'd like to see you cite Roosevelt in order to show he thought it was corporate dominance. I mean the man saw commerce as effeminate.
"This isn't true. I am pointing out the variations, I am ceding the overall point of expansionism, but pointing out their goals in that expansion weren't at all similar."
I believe I have shown that they are. All you have done is say "they are out of context" in so many words.
"Have you ever read Jefferson on the Natives? When you say 'give them the tomahawk' you are refering to contract law and the natives ignorance of it, right? Jefferson states several times in his letters that the Indians are just as smart as the Europeans and that contracts will be required to get things from them. Jackson was an outward racist. I don't think Jefferson was. Jefferson didn't even think Jackson was fit for President."
I have Jefferson's writings sitting right next to me. I can give you the page numbers. When I said "tomahawk" I used the word that Jefferson used in regards to his policy toward hostile Indians. Jefferson wanted them bound to friendship...bound. They should be bribed into it. In this state they will be introduced to "civilized" culture and thus be turned into civilized people. This is the stadial theory of history. It is not racial per say. It is environmentalist. These "savages" did not grow up in a civilized culture were they were taught in civilized manners. If they were indoctrinated into a civilized culture they would become civilized.
"No, you cannot. He explicitly stated that we were to use contract law and fine print (Machiavellian tactics) in order to secure the land we wanted. This is precisely because he was not racist (as racist) towards them...what don't you get about this?"
Actually you can. This is how biological racism develops. The stadial method failed to fit the ideal of colonialists. Indians were not becoming "civilized" because of their proximity to civilization. Therefore there is something inetly different between them and the Europeans. Something that cannot be "civilized" out by European culture hence biological racism. Inconvertible differences between cultures. Something one is "born" into.
"No, learn to write. If I wasn't versed in English (say, a foreigner) I wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of what you are saying. You will refer to one thing in one sentence , THEN, with no indication switch subjects and points to a totally different topic. It is like chaos verbiage. Language is uniform so that everyone can understand it"
Hold on, I will change my writing style to make you happy. Just give me a minute.
"You aren't very sharp, are you? My initial mention was not "reminiscing about how Jefferson never sent the military over to China." My point was that the motivations for Jefferson sending military forces to Tripoli was based on defense of trade. My reference to China was not framed in the time of Jefferson, but that of TR and Wilson; I refer to the U.S. military ventures in China on behalf of National City Bank. They are not even close to being the same in terms of motivation and hence my saying that comparing them is unproductive, but since that is all you can think about with those "dipshit blinders" you seem to have sewn on to your face, I predicted that you would go down that road. You did go down that road and still don't get why I intiailly told you it was useless."
I never compared Jefferson and National City Bank in relation to China...I never even talked about National City Bank. You seem to have been blinded by some violent outburst. Here I will explain my point again. Jefferson was trying to get to China. He did not need to send the American military into China because the British already had a sizeable force there. Roosevelt made more progress toward the China Market then Thomas Jefferson because Roosevelt helped to conquer various Pacific nations that would serve as coaling stations for boats to get to the Chinese coast. These nations were Philippines, Guam, Hawaii. Do you understand so far? Now why Roosevelt have an easier time then Jefferson doing this? Well because getting to the Chinese coast was more difficult in Jefferson's time then Roosevelt. The American frontier at that time was considered the Ohio valley. By the time Roosevelt had come into office, California had already been admitted as a state, the Mexican-American war had extended American borders to the western coast. There was an greater American presence and more development. Jefferson did not have that presence. Thus it was more difficult for him.
Now your direct quote was:
Now my reply was:
"No, he was too busy waging war on the Barbary pirates and really the Chinese already had a military on their lands. They were the British."
Translation:
No, Jefferson did not send any troops to China. He was fighting the Barbary pirates. The American Navy was small back then so a foreign fight would have consumed the time of those forces. Anyways, the British already had control of China so what would be the point of sending troops to a conquered nation?
toward hostile Indians
Ah, so now qualifications come into it. Who wouldn't treat "hostiles" with force?
If they were indoctrinated into a civilized culture they would become civilized.
So, why did Jefferson abolish the Indian re-education center at William & Mary? Hmm? Wouldn't that seem like a good way to "indoctrinate them? Or was it just not big enough? He did that at the same time he introduced "poltical economy" in the vein of Turgot to W&M.
It is not your writing style you imbecile. It is your fucking hillbilly education in the "Anglish" department. How can you expect people to believe your historcial analyisis if you don't get third grade English functions? Honestly?
I never compared Jefferson and National City Bank in relation to China.
No, but the whole point of this discussion was comparing the circumstances from Jefferson's time to that of Wilson. That is why I brought it up. The CIRCUMSTANCES ARE TOO DIFFERENT TO SAY THAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS ARE THE SAME. Jefferson had banks and he hated them, Wilson and TR worked FOR THEM. Their motivations for expansion are not the same EVEN IF THEY BOTH USED THE WORD "AMERICAN" in their speeches. You think-headed cunt of person.
Can you restate this for a fourth time please? I'm just not getting it, bro.
You are a hillbilly (as evidenced by your Anglish skrillz) and you are purposely avoiding the temporal conflict of your reasoning. You cannot possibly say that Jefferson would have done anything like what TR did BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCE. You use their rhetoric to make your points. Like every asshole politician in history, they use the words of the Founders to further their own ambitions. Their masque of motivation is the "shining hill" you refer to. IT MEANS NOTHING IF CONTEXT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
Also, this quote of mine ""And what is wrong with trading with the Orient? I don't recall Jefferson telling anyone to send the military over there to help the banks..."
the comparison was that Jefferson didn't send the military anywhere in the world on behalf of banks...TR and Wilson BOTH DID. Your focus on Jefferson and China is totally unnecessary...I didn't mean to imply that i was concerned with his policy towards them anyway.
Also, your obnoxious method of highlighting the text is bad on people's eyes. When the focus of the eye is black and the immediate outline is bright (white, neon yellow, etc.) it dilates the eyes. This is why most TVs are black and why smart people have black keyboards. Please use the quote method. You are making it difficult for people's eyes to adjust with that yellow highlight, you fucking moron.
:Ah, so now qualifications come into it. Who wouldn't treat "hostiles" with force?"
Who kills the victim and thinks it is justice?
"So, why did Jefferson abolish the Indian re-education center at William & Mary? Hmm? Wouldn't that seem like a good way to "indoctrinate them? Or was it just not big enough? He did that at the same time he introduced "poltical economy" in the vein of Turgot to W&M. "
Let me clear my proverbial throat. Here we are. In a letter to William Henry Harrison in 1803:
"The decrease of game rendering their subsistence by hunting insufficient, we wish to draw them to agriculture, to spinning and weaving. The latter branches they take up with great readiness, because they fall to the women, who gain by quitting the labors of the field for those which are exercised within doors. When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this dispoistion to exchange lands, which they have to spare and we want, we shall push our trading uses, and be glad to see the good influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observes when these debts go beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands. At our trading houses, too, we mean to sell so low as merely to repay us cost and charges, so as neither to lessen or enlarge our capital. This is what private traders cannot do, for they must gain; they will consequently retire from the competition, and we shall thus get clear of this pest without giving offence (sic) or umbrage to the Indians. In this way our setttlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi."
In his second inaugural address:
It was long so I just copied and pasted it.
"It is not your writing style you imbecile. It is your fucking hillbilly education in the "Anglish" department. How can you expect people to believe your historcial analyisis if you don't get third grade English functions? Honestly?'
Any time a moderator wants to come in and police this comment, I'm certainly for it. It is my writing style. It is not formal when I am on the Mises forums. I just read your sentence, respond, then read your next sentence. That is just how I respond. So far you have been nothing but belligerent and yet I am labeled the ignorant one.
"No, but the whole point of this discussion was comparing the circumstances from Jefferson's time to that of Wilson. That is why I brought it up. The CIRCUMSTANCES ARE TOO DIFFERENT TO SAY THAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS ARE THE SAME. Jefferson had banks and he hated them, Wilson and TR worked FOR THEM. Their motivations for expansion are not the same EVEN IF THEY BOTH USED THE WORD "AMERICAN" in their speeches. You think-headed cunt of person."
I am not a "think-headed cunt of a person," whatever you mean by that. My point can be easily reestablished. It had nothing to do with banks. You just keep on introducing new topics to the discussion that have nothing to do with it, like secession.
Here are my points again:
"Both believed that Americanism should be spread to counter-act a perceived threat."
(In discussion Americanism) "At its heart it still holds the nationalistic notion that America is something of a bulwark against dark powers. America through some facet is meant to influence world events and establish its dominance for benevolent purposes"
"Both believed in a frontier-like thesis."
"Jefferson and TR were after the same target. The target being the China market."
"Can you restate this for a fourth time please? I'm just not getting it, bro."
Do you think you will get it the fifth time?
"You are a hillbilly (as evidenced by your Anglish skrillz) and you are purposely avoiding the temporal conflict of your reasoning. You cannot possibly say that Jefferson would have done anything like what TR did BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCE. You use their rhetoric to make your points. Like every asshole politician in history, they use the words of the Founders to further their own ambitions. Their masque of motivation is the "shining hill" you refer to. IT MEANS NOTHING IF CONTEXT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT."
So, wait...should I not be using their words to make my points? I'm confused. Wait, do I use my word to make their points? No. That does not make sense. I think using their words to establish my point...well..it sounds smart...Can I get an uninterested third-party here to give us some kind of direction?
But seriously, there are trends in history. You just have to see them. It is not as if Roosevelt or Wilson just suddenly started talking about spreading Americanism aboard, right out of the blue. For John Winthrop, the city upon a hill was to be a place of importance in the sense that it would try to be a pure form of religious living. It was here that people would find salvation against the Papacy and the English Church, two institutions which had turned their backs on God. For Reagan it was here that people would find salvation against the spectre of Communism sweeping around the world, a philosophy that had turned its back on individualism and freedom. Do you see it now? The connection is the United States.
For the fifth time:
"At its heart it still holds the nationalistic notion that America is something of a bulwark against dark powers. America through some facet is meant to influence world events and establish its dominance for benevolent purposes."
It is American exceptionalism and its been around since John Winthrop sat his Puritan ass on the east coast in 1630.
Further, you skeeze, you took Jefferson way out of context with your tomahawk comment. You see, I am not an idiot, like you, nor am I intellectually dishonest, like you.
"Our news from the westward is disagreeable. Constant murders committing by the Indians, and their combination threatens to be more and more extensive. I hope we shall give them a thorough drubbing this summer, and then change our tomahawk into a golden chain of friendship. The most economical as well as most humane conduct towards them is to bribe them into peace, and to retain them in peace by eternal bribes. The expedition this year would have served for presents on the most liberal scale for one hundred years; nor shall we otherwise ever get rid of any army, or of our debt. The least rag of Indian depredation will be an excuse to raise troops for those who love to have troops, and for those who think that a public debt is a good thing." - Jefferson to Charles Carroll, April 15, 1791
- Jefferson to Charles Carroll, April 15, 1791
He is lamenting (not endorsing) the fact that it will be necessary to do these things. And that it will be used as ammunition for those that like war and debt. You have lost so much face for this, kid.
Here Jefferson makes the point that I am trying to make to you...
You have been so long absent from this part of the world, and the state of society so changed in that time, that details respecting those who compose it are no longer interesting or intelligible to you. - Jefferson to Benjamin Hawkins, February 18, 1803
- Jefferson to Benjamin Hawkins, February 18, 1803
And this was said while the person was alive. Not a century, but a mere lifetime...
Later in that same letter,
I consider the business of hunting as already become insufficient to furnish clothing and subsistence to the Indians. The promotion of agriculture, therefore, and household manufacture, are essential in their preservation, and I am disposed to aid and encourage it liberally. This will enable them to live on much smaller portions of land, and indeed will render their vast forests useless but for the range of cattle; for which purpose, also, as they become better farmers, they will be found useless, and even disadvantageous. While they are learning to do better on less land, our increasing numbers will be calling for more land, and thus a coincidence of interests will be produced between those who have lands to spare, and want other necessaries, and those who have such necessaries to spare, and want lands. This commerce, then, will be for the good of both, and those who are friends to both ought to encourage it.
As we teach them farming, it will be mutually beneficial to trade with them for the good of BOTH. Ah, the words of a callous man out to murder the barbarians who aren't civilized...right?
More from that letter,
In truth, the ultimate point of rest & happiness for them is to let our settlements and theirs meet and blend together, to intermix, and become one people. Incorporating themselves with us as citizens of the U.S., this is what the natural progress of things will of course bring on, and it will be better to promote than to retard it. Surely it will be better for them to be identified with us, and preserved in the occupation of their lands, than be exposed to the many casualties which may endanger them while a separate people. I have little doubt but that your reflections must have led you to view the various ways in which their history may terminate, and to see that this is the one most for their happiness.
Here he does have an attitude of "I know what's best for them," but I think, he has some fair points. Don't forget he is also thinking of those in the U.S. that are racist and what they will do to the indians if they do not get what they want. So, I agree with Jefferson in the "pure morality" of it.
same letter,
And we have already had an application from a settlement of Indians to become citizens of the U.S. It is possible, perhaps probable, that this idea may be so novel as that it might shock the Indians, were it even hinted to them.
OMG, the Indians might never have considered just becoming citizens!! Man, that is the "tomahawk" if I've ever heard it.
A different letter a few days later,
Our system is to live in perpetual peace with the Indians, to cultivate an affectionate attachment from them, by everything just and liberal which we can do for them within the bounds of reason, and by giving them effectual protection against wrongs from our own people. - Jefferson to Governor William H. Harrison, February 27, 1803
- Jefferson to Governor William H. Harrison, February 27, 1803
That bastard!
The Cahokias extinct, we are entitled to their country by our paramount sovereignty.
This is kind of dickish, but here
The Piorias, we understand, have all been driven off from their country, and we might claim it in the same way; but as we understand there is one chief remaining, who would, as the survivor of the tribe, sell the right, it is better to give him such terms as will make him easy for life, and take a conveyance from him.
he decides against just taking the land due to the "paramount sovereignty" of the U.S. He wants to pay the last chief so as to "make him easy for life."
and further,
The Kaskaskias being reduced to a few families, I presume we may purchase their whole country for what would place every individual of them at his ease, and be a small price to us, -- say by laying off for each family, whenever they would choose it, as much rich land as they could cultivate, adjacent to each other, enclosing the whole in a single fence, and giving them such an annuity in money or goods forever as would place them in happiness; and we might take them also under the protection of the United States.
This is not ill-tempered at all. He wants them to be together, have money, be happy, and be safe (presumably from the racist expansionists who think that "paramount sovereignty" is a reason to deprive them of all the aforementioned 'ammenities' of being native to the land of colonizers.
The occupation of New Orleans, hourly expected, by the French, is already felt like a light breeze by the Indians. You know the sentiments they entertain of that nation; under the hope of their protection they will immediately stiffen against cessions of lands to us. We had better, therefore, do at once what can now be done.
Here Jefferson contemplates "wooing" the indians from the protection that France has afforded them (implicitly it sounds).
I must repeat that this letter is to be considered as private and friendly, and is not to control any particular instructions which you may receive through official channel. You will also perceive how sacredly it must be kept within your own breast, and especially how improper to be understood by the Indians. For their interests and their tranquillity it is best they should see only the present age of their history.
Here he does sound like he knows that the indians won't be pumped about what will happen to their (cultural) history in the future due to the expanse of the U.S. and or France. (He may even think that they would think that he thinks that they are pawns between the French and the U.S. which is partly true and partly not.)
His letter to John Adams on June 11, 1812 seemd like he had a genuine interest in the culture of the indians and was certainly not going to take on faith the accounts of some of the observers of the indians due to their preconceptions.
So much in answer to your enquiries concerning Indians, a people with whom, in the very early part of my life, I was very familiar, and acquired impressions of attachment and commiseration for them which have never been obliterated. Before the revolution they were in the habit of coming often, and in great numbers to the seat of our government, where I was very much with them. I knew much the great Outassete [i.e., Outacity], the warrior and orator of the Cherokees. He was always the guest of my father, on his journeys to and from Williamsburg. I was in his camp when he made his great farewell oration to his people, the evening before his departure for England. The moon was in full splendor, and to her he seemed to address himself in his prayers for his own safety on the voyage, and that of his people during his absence. His sounding voice, distinct articulation, animated actions, and the solemn silence of his people at their several fires, filled me with awe and veneration, altho' I did not understand a word he uttered.
He even says that the Canadians will be the ones who "conquer" the indians and this will help us because they are the ones who threaten the indians.
If you need anymore help learning, I'll be here.
WHAT!?!!?!?!
Jefferson states explicitly that the indians had committed "constant murders." Who is the victim?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jesus Christ you are dumb.
How are you about to tell me I am introducing concepts off topic with statments like this,
For Reagan it was here that people would find salvation against the spectre of Communism sweeping around the world, a philosophy that had turned its back on individualism and freedom. Do you see it now? The connection is the United States.
WHO CARES? You are almost two centuries into temporal comparison. Do you think Jefferson had any idea what the 1980's would look like? Do you think Reagan's motivations were anything like Jefferson's?
Regarding your quotations, why don't you provide some interpretation of them? I quoted the same letter you did...but didn't get thhe same thing out of it. I explain my reasoning, you do not. The letter to Williiam Harrison is explaining the mutual benefit that the two cultures recieve in trading agricultural technique as well as "spinning and weaving" for lands to settle on...you are way of the mark if you think that is some kind of racist "let's kill'em and take their shit" statement.
Yeah, because you keep referring to political speeches as if politicians don't make shit up and use language that people like to hear. Every politician says that "america is here to save the day." It doesn't mean that that is the reason for their doing things...Personal letters are better suited for examination of their actual opinions because they weren't meant for public consumption.
Oh yeah, secession is relevant if we are discussing the prospects for expansion of "americanism" being the prime relation of Jefferson to TR and/or Wilson. It doesn't stand to reason that someone who supports secession from the U.S. system to at the same time be trying to force it down other people's throats...If they can leave the so called "city on a hill" what makes it so grand as to be expanded? hm?? hmmm??
Jefferson, by your account, would be saying, "Take lessons from us (expand americansim), but don't if you don't like it (feel free to secede)." Wilson and TR were willing to go to war for American ideals (or so they said more likely it was British banking pressure that pushed us into WWI) and I highly doubt that if some states wanted to secede during their terms that they would have let them...
"He is lamenting (not endorsing) the fact that it will be necessary to do these things. And that it will be used as ammunition for those that like war and debt. You have lost so much face for this, kid."
My comments:
"Jefferson was not as zealous as say Andrew Jackson in terms of Indian relations but he was not against giving them the "tomahawk" when he felt they deserved it."
"Jefferson wanted them bound to friendship...bound. They should be bribed into it. In this state they will be introduced to "civilized" culture and thus be turned into civilized people. This is the stadial theory of history. It is not racial per say. It is environmentalist. These "savages" did not grow up in a civilized culture were they were taught in civilized manners. If they were indoctrinated into a civilized culture they would become civilized."
And for my next comment:
In the letter to William Henry Harrison, the same letter you are quoting:
"As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, an that all our liberalities to them proceed from the motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be fool-hardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation."
Wait...what did I say before?
"When I said "tomahawk" I used the word that Jefferson used in regards to his policy toward hostile Indians."
Oh right! Wait...how did you miss that part of the letter. I mean you are quoting it so it is not like you did not have it. Wait...are you purposely leaving out portions of the letter to William Henry Harrison in an effort to make me look like they bad guy...oh you coy minx you!
"As we teach them farming, it will be mutually beneficial to trade with them for the good of BOTH. Ah, the words of a callous man out to murder the barbarians who aren't civilized...right?"
The words of a man who believes in a stadial theory of history and labels agriculture as progress and hunter-gathering as backwardness. And this is not some "oh hey farming is more secure and feeds more" type of arguement. This is: You are inferior because you do not domesticate your animals. The hilarious part is that Indians had to supply early American with crops because the majority of early colonists were not farmers.
Here is another primary source that goes directly against your absurd and overgeneralized claim,
Your several favors of Feb. 22, 27, & March 16. which had been accumulating in Richmond during the prevalence of the small pox in that place, were lately brought to me, on the permission given the post to resume his communication. I am particularly to thank you for your favor in forwarding the Bee. Your letters give a comfortable view of French affairs, and later events seem to confirm it. Over the foreign powers I am convinced they will triumph completely, & I cannot but hope that that triumph, & the consequent disgrace of the invading tyrants, is destined, in the order of events, to kindle the wrath of the people of Europe against those who have dared to embroil them in such wickedness, and to bring at length, kings, nobles, & priests to the scaffolds which they have been so long deluging with human blood. I am still warm whenever I think of these scoundrels, tho I do it as seldom as I can, preferring infinitely to contemplate the tranquil growth of my lucerne & potatoes. I have so completely withdrawn myself from these spectacles of usurpation & misrule, that I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month; & I feel myself infinitely the happier for it. We are alarmed here with the apprehensions of war; and sincerely anxious that it may be avoided; but not at the expense either of our faith or honor. It seems much the general opinion here, that the latter has been too much wounded not to require reparation, & to seek it even in war, if that be necessary. As to myself, I love peace, and I am anxious that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer. I love, therefore, mr. Clarke's proposition of cutting off all communication with the nation which has conducted itself so atrociously. This, you will say, may bring on war. If it does, we will meet it like men; but it may not bring on war, & then the experiment will have been a happy one. I believe this war would be vastly more unanimously approved than any one we ever were engaged in; because the aggressions have been so wanton & bare-faced, and so unquestionably against our desire. -- I am sorry mr. Cooper & Priestly did not take a more general survey of our country before they fixed themselves. I think they might have promoted their own advantage by it, and have aided the introduction of our improvement where it is more wanting. The prospect of wheat for the ensuing year is a bad one. This is all the sort of news you can expect from me. From you I shall be glad to hear all sort of news, & particularly any improvements in the arts applicable to husbandry or household manufacture. - To Tench Coxe Monticello, May 1, 1794
- To Tench Coxe Monticello, May 1, 1794
Stop trying to sound like you are some PhD synthesizer that has some grand unique vision of what draws American politicians together. You stretch absurdities to make your points and have ignored every contra argument to my favor in order to continue your propondering banalities...
The words of a man who believes in a stadial theory of history and labels agriculture as progress and hunter-gathering as backwardness.
hahahaha as if it is not? You refer to this as if it is not perfectly reasonable for them to think that...why don't you explain why it is a bad thing to think that? Do you think that cannibals are lesser people than you? If so, then you might be a follower of the SToH...
Oh right! Wait...how did you miss that part of the letter. I mean you are quoting it so it is not like you did not have it. Wait...are you purposely leaving out portions of the letter to William Henry Harrison in an effort to make me look like they bad guy...
I don't even know to what you are referring anymore. I'm pretty sure I quoted sections that weren't always in my favor...
So, what?
How many contra examples of Jeffesron did I pull up, four? And you are hung up on his sentiment of retaliation...AND you try to paint it as if it is ana gressive notion.
You're a dumbass.
"WHAT!?!!?!?!
How are you about to tell me I am introducing concepts off topic with statments like this,"
I would label the tribes that had their lands taken from them as the victims. I mean they were not always on the right side but they were victims more then perpetrators.
"WHO CARES? You are almost two centuries into temporal comparison. Do you think Jefferson had any idea what the 1980's would look like? Do you think Reagan's motivations were anything like Jefferson's?"
Jefferson have any ideas on 1980? No I do not think he did. I just want to be clear on something though. Do you think that the modern American empire is not the same American empire that was being developed in the late 19th century? If not then when did it evolve? What I mean to say is when is your arbitrary distinction of what is and is not relevant to present events in effect?
"Regarding your quotations, why don't you provide some interpretation of them? I quoted the same letter you did...but didn't get thhe same thing out of it. I explain my reasoning, you do not. The letter to Williiam Harrison is explaining the mutual benefit that the two cultures recieve in trading agricultural technique as well as "spinning and weaving" for lands to settle on...you are way of the mark if you think that is some kind of racist "let's kill'em and take their shit" statement."
"In this state they will be introduced to "civilized" culture and thus be turned into civilized people. This is the stadial theory of history. It is not racial per say. It is environmentalist. These "savages" did not grow up in a civilized culture where they were taught in civilized manners. If they were indoctrinated into a civilized culture they would become civilized"
"This is how biological racism develops. The stadial method failed to fit the ideal of colonialists. Indians were not becoming "civilized" because of their proximity to civilization. Therefore there is something innately different between them and the Europeans. Something that cannot be "civilized" out by European culture hence biological racism. Inconvertible differences between cultures. Something one is "born" into."
I'm getting tired of this though. Before you were mad that I was using their words to make my point. Now you are mad because I don't elaborate my points about their comments.
"Yeah, because you keep referring to political speeches as if politicians don't make shit up and use language that people like to hear. Every politician says that "america is here to save the day." It doesn't mean that that is the reason for their doing things...Personal letters are better suited for examination of their actual opinions because they weren't meant for public consumption."
Well that is false. Why would Jefferson save these letters if not for his posterity. In fact George Washington burned a lot of his correspondence to help build the myths about him. Smart man.
"Oh yeah, secession is relevant if we are discussing the prospects for expansion of "americanism" being the prime relation of Jefferson to TR and/or Wilson. It doesn't stand to reason that someone who supports secession from the U.S. system to at the same time be trying to force it down other people's throats...If they can leave the so called "city on a hill" what makes it so grand as to be expanded? hm?? hmmm??"
People can have cognitive dissonance. What makes it so grand as to be expanded, simple, the points I went over. Because the perception of an Anglo-American race, or their philosophy on politics, hell some people thought it was cause God was talking to them.
Cognitive dissonance, just like you!
First I am a dumb hillbilly
then Im a PhD synthezier.
Cognitive dissonance!
I'm both an idiot and a machine of civilization's highest degree obtainable!
"hahahaha as if it is not? You refer to this as if it is not perfectly reasonable for them to think that...why don't you explain why it is a bad thing to think that? Do you think that cannibals are lesser people than you? If so, then you might be a follower of the SToH..."
It is not perfectly resonable. A culture is not placed upon a "ladder" of civilization with white races on top and minorities on the bottom. Cannibals are not lesser, they are different.
"How many contra examples of Jeffesron did I pull up, four? And you are hung up on his sentiment of retaliation...AND you try to paint it as if it is ana gressive notion.
You're a dumbass."
Well you see we are in a libertarian forum and one of the libertarian tenets is the principle of non-aggression. So if you attack someone and they attack back, that does not make you the victim. That makes you the aggressor and the person fighting back the defender. If you are actively trying to push people out of their homelands because you do not think they are civilized then I would call that "ana gressive notion." I like the "So, what?" part. You just posted about how I was wrong and intellectually dishonest because you found a quote with tomahawk in it. I show you a quote which proves my point that Jefferson was not against using violence toward Indians...then suddenly..."so what?"
I will cherish this. It is a small thing to cherish but I rather get a kick out of it.
Do you think that the modern American empire is not the same American empire that was being developed in the late 19th century?
Was Jefferson alive in the late 19th century?
What I mean to say is when is your arbitrary distinction of what is and is not relevant to present events in effect?
The Civil War which extinguished any inkling of two or three North American unions. Santa Clara County v. South Pacific Railroad which solidified the corporation above the state level and at the same level as the Federal government. Those are the turning points that help to develop the modern american empire, in my opinion.
Well, when we quote the same source, but come to seperate conclusions, it is useful to know why the other person concluded what they did, no?
This is not false. You realize that personal correspondance is used in courts, right? Your journal; could implicate you in ways that contradict your public speech. RE: Washington, what a piece of shit. Madison attempted to change his old letters and such. Also, it is likely that Jefferson did not keep his outgoing letters...the recipients may have though...
More irrelevant banalities.
First I am a dumb hillbilly then Im a PhD synthezier.
Don't flatter yourself hillbilly. I accused you of "pretending like you are a PhD synthesizer." The accusation of which actually fits well with the "hillbilly." As does your omission of the word "pretending."
Ironic isn't it?
Cannibals are not lesser, they are different.
hahahah. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here. When you have contributed nothing to philosophy, science, or art I tend to think that your culture is "lesser" than the ones that have.
So if you attack someone and they attack back, that does not make you the victim.
I said in my first post not to go all libertarian about history because it is unfruitful. "Libertarianism" grew out of what, particularly, Jefferson reasoned about state power (and Locke and a few others, I know).
If you are actively trying to push people out of their homelands because you do not think they are civilized then I would call that "ana gressive notion."
This wasn't the case. I pulled up several places where Jefferson suggested adding them to the list of "citizens" of the U.S. JACKSON (whom Jefferson did not like) is the one who wanted to push them out and SHERMAN is the one who wanted to kill them.
You just posted about how I was wrong and intellectually dishonest because you found a quote with tomahawk in it.
No, I found the EXACT quote that you took out of context.
I show you a quote which proves my point that Jefferson was not against using violence toward Indians...then suddenly..."so what?"
I never claimed he was against using violence. I claimed he wasn't inclined toward racism. His use of violence was always mentioned as defensive. Jefferson didn't found the colonies and live for 250 years oppressing them in various ways, but you wish to attribute those actions to him. Something that I think is intellectually dishonest.
"Was Jefferson alive in the late 19th century?"
Do ideas last beyond their creators?
"The Civil War which extinguished any inkling of two or three North American unions. Santa Clara County v. South Pacific Railroad which solidified the corporation above the state level and at the same level as the Federal government. Those are the turning points that help to develop the modern american empire, in my opinion."
Ok so it is not time, it is key events. And for you it is the expansion of corporate power.
"This is not false. You realize that personal correspondance is used in courts, right? Your journal; could implicate you in ways that contradict your public speech. RE: Washington, what a piece of shit. Madison attempted to change his old letters and such. Also, it is likely that Jefferson did not keep his outgoing letters...the recipients may have though..."\
No the false part is that you think personal correspondence are better suited to understanding people. They could be pandering to the people in the letter just like they pander to the public. A good historian always cross-references multiple sources to better understand a person.
"More irrelevant banalities."
You asked why they might expand. Do not ask questions to something you do not want the answer to.
"Don't flatter yourself hillbilly. I accused you of "pretending like you are a PhD synthesizer." The accusation of which actually fits well with the "hillbilly." As does your omission of the word "pretending."
Ironic isn't it?"
Well I am actually getting my master's in history right now. Onward to a PhD after this!
"hahahah. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here. When you have contributed nothing to philosophy, science, or art I tend to think that your culture is "lesser" than the ones that have."
Well I think that is silly. Just because there are great thinkers does not mean that the people whom they associate with are better. I do not think that the aspect of individualism is fully appreciated by you. Our greatness is dependent upon our actions, not the actions of strangers.
"I said in my first post not to go all libertarian about history because it is unfruitful. "Libertarianism" grew out of what, particularly, Jefferson reasoned about state power (and Locke and a few others, I know)."
Jefferson has his spot, in classical liberalism.
"This wasn't the case. I pulled up several places where Jefferson suggested adding them to the list of "citizens" of the U.S. JACKSON (whom Jefferson did not like) is the one who wanted to push them out and SHERMAN is the one who wanted to kill them."
"No, I found the EXACT quote that you took out of context."
"I never claimed he was against using violence. I claimed he wasn't inclined toward racism. His use of violence was always mentioned as defensive. Jefferson didn't found the colonies and live for 250 years oppressing them in various ways, but you wish to attribute those actions to him. Something that I think is intellectually dishonest."
I will put these responses together because I wrote out a response and then it was deleted because I hit the wrong button and really I do not want to write out another long response for each. I will say this:
For the whole day you have been blubbering about how Jefferson wanted peace and friendship with the Indians. Finally, you are now actually talking sense by stating he was not against violence. He was not above using violence and he was not above driving whole tribes, his words, across the Mississippi. If you are claiming he was not inclined toward a racist view of the Indian, then you are claiming something I did not really touch upon. I am talking about the stadial theory of history, something you seem to think actually exists. The stadial method could be used to produce racist impliciations but for Jefferson's time it was an environmental belief. You see this in his second inaugeral address in which he discusses how Indians grew up in savage land. They cannot help but be savage for they are a produce of their environment. Thus you take the savage out of the barbarous environment and they stop being savage. That is what the "empire of liberty" was meant to do. Bring civilization to the savages. That has been one of my points all along. Also I specifically stated that Jefferson cannot be held accountable for the racist hatred that was inflicted upon the Indians. I specifically stated that. Jefferson's method was to push them into civilization, as you saw in the quote, and if they pushed back then they should be pushed across the Mississippi. Assimilate or be pushed aside. That is an aggressive notion. Was Jefferson burning wigwams on the plains? No. He was not overtly shooting down Indians. What he was trying to do was push them out of their present state and into a "civilized" state. It is after Jefferson's time when people think that an Indian will always been an Indian. An Indian cannot be civilized. It is the beginning of biological racism.
Anyways, a good book on early American relations with Indians is Patrick Griffin's American Leviathan: Empire, Nation, and Revolutionary Frontier. Griffin is terrible on understanding and applying Hobbes but he is good on other stuff.
I will give Jefferson this, he lived in a time where people broke out murderers of Indians because they thought killing Indians was a good thing. So at least he was not overtly shooting them.