Hi everyone, first OP. :)
So today in my introduction to American History class, my professor (who I suspect to be either Marxist or severely social-democratic) talked about the American revolution. He described it and the underlying Republican ideology as anti-capitalistic and anti-individualistic. He said that there was an underlying belief in the need for the individual to sacrifice himself for the 'greater good' as represented by George Washingtons wearily accepting the function of president and as represented by the need for good citizens. He also painted Jefferson as a anti-capitalist, using a quote of his from the note on the state of Virginia talking about that agriculture is good and cities are bad. (very roughly paraphrased)
I challenged him in class and afterwards on these points. (I think this is very far fetched) For example I talked about Paine conveying the need for free trade instead of mercantilism, and about Jeffersons opposition to Hamiltons Federalist pro-mercantilist position. He deflected this partly by saying that Paine was not a good representative of the republican tradition, and that Jefferson was very inconsistent during his lifetime and held different positions in time. I wasn't able to press on unfortunately.
So this brings me to my question. I want to follow up on this discussion with my professor and send him a well reasoned email telling him that I disagree with him, and the reasons behind that. Do you guys agree with me on this? Do you have any good sources which I can use in my rebuttal? Any good sources or quotes to show that Jefferson was not an agricultural anti-capitalist? Or just any other good points about this subject I can learn from or use in my discussion with my professor?
Thank you. :)
ps. just as a disclaimer, I'm Dutch so excuse my non-perfect knowledge of American history
Natalie:In theory. In practice, especially with centralised government, the rights are always somewhat compromised.
No, they are actually absolutes. In practice they are still absolutes. Government interferes with the expression of rights, it cannot redefine them.
Juan:What part about "the property of married women was under total control of their husbands" you don't understand ?
I am pretty sure those were not forced marriages...so, sounds like a decision made by the woman of her own free will to enter such an arrangement.
And what are we arguing about now, anyway? Are we capable of having a discussion about historical events without injecting ideology into it? Next thing you know Juan will take the founders to task for not supporting gay marriage either.
And what are we arguing about now, anyway?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
GilesStratton:It's quite simply really, refuse that the group of people you're enslaving really are "men" (human?). Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually believe this, but that's certainly a valid way for one to maintain advocacy of natural rights whilst keeping slaves.
Ah no you can't.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael