Was Thomas Jefferson a great president? He certainly could be ranked as one of the most disappointing: there was so much that he could have done, was expected to do, but did not do. FULL ARTICLE by H.A. Scott Trask
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13236/was-thomas-jefferson-a-great-president/
Was Thomas Jefferson a Great President?
Previous post: Prosperity Strangled by Gold?
Next post: Paul Krugman (I’m Shocked!) Gets It Wrong on Deflation
{ 22 comments }
Jefferson is a perfect example of why we should separate man from message. His message is great, but as a man, he failed to follow the message. Ideas and people are distinct things. A great idea said by a despisable person is still a great idea. A despisable idea said by a saintly person is still despisable.
I lack the knowledge and capability to adequately analyze the performance of Thomas Jefferson. However, there is a difference between the ideals & vision of a man, and what he can do as a political leader. Perhaps the most that we can expect of a leader is that he strives to fulfill his oath of office (“to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That was done by Jefferson, and by virtually no one else during our lifetime.
i love you mom lol and im going to try to do A LOT better in school than i have been like all of my failing grades to better grades
Jefferson states that: “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…. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions . . . But I also know that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind…. As new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”
One of many men of deep thought during this important period of human history and on this Earth at the right moment. Many believe that in this statement Jefferson speaks of the U.S. Constitution and respond: ‘see, even our forefathers concede that our institute is based on a ‘living document”. However, even our forefathers were inspired to a depth that they knew by designing a Bill of Rights ‘we have, therefore, limited human rights’.
Well, take heed from these intellectuals. Instead of reformulating, may I say, a divinely inspired document such as the U.S. Constitution coming from a time of great change and advancement of civilization (the Age of Enlightenment), might our forefathers have been thinking about this document (the U.S. Constitution) as a humble means for other nations to progress to an even better human state.
For instance, the predetermined leadership in place in England, if not all of Europe, except maybe Germany, have designed a system to eventually own all their citizens. But American traditional thought and personality stands in the way of these aristocratic desires; all because of their determination for their desired “Pursuit of Happiness”.
Why must many believe that humanity and, thus, civilizations need to take steps backward to advance two steps?
The Louisiana Purchase was paid for using Hamilton’s National Bank. That’s not great.
Yeah, but it was SUCH A DEAL!!!
The temptation must have been unbearable. Buy now, apologize later.
It was a good deal for the well connected.
Wrong, except in the sense that it helped broker the bonds that were issued to pay for it. It was mostly the British that actually fronted up the money to buy those.
Our founding father’s desire to break from English rule failed once Washington allowed Hamilton to borrow from the English Banking system. My between-the-lines understanding is the Revolutionary War was fought for the privilege or, therefore, sovereign Right to print U.S. Currency; since England refused us that permission. Currency is what makes a country, nation, or state sovereign and independent from others, not so much language, as others may believe.
After the death of so many Americans searching for the “Pursuit of Happiness” for themselves and their grandchildren, we still seem to struggle with this sovereignty problem. And with the adoption of modern Machiavellian principles and philosophies by our Politicians and our inability to recognize this, obviously, we stand no chance of reaching this ultimate pinnacle of human and/or civilized advancement.
Ummmm… no, the Revolutionary War was fought because the Colonies were being taxed without democratic representation in Parliament, and the English army occupied Boston, among other things. Where do you guys get this stuff?
As for the Louisiana Purchase, it doesn’t seem so bad, maybe permitted by the Constitution even, if you think of it as a means of non-violent defence. Buying that land meant no more French to deal with (except in New Orleans) or defend against, and the Mississippi River as a natural boundary.
Believe as you must….
gold, guns & ideas… life, liberty and property.
So taxes, currency.. played an important part. As did unlawful searches, confiscations. As did free speech and freedom of religion.
If you want to know why the war was fought, I suggest you look no further than the Bill of Rights. It might seem simplistic, but there is a reason why Jefferson was so adamant on it.
Wrong. There hadn’t been an English army since 1707.
Similarly wrong. There hadn’t been English rule of the American colonies since 1707.
PM Lawrence, the common confusion of England and Great Britain does not make their replies substantively “wrong”. Instead of nitpicking, perhaps you should address the meat of their arguments next time.
A simple “FYI” would have not only sufficed but would have likely prevented the unwary reader into believing that you were actually making a valid counterargument.
Trask perpetuates the usual myth that the Barbary states were simply demanding tribute so as not to harass shipping. In actual fact, they were seeking to hold the USA to the deal the rebels had made to get recognition as an independent country, using naval actions as a sanction. The case was not the same as Barbary raids on Europe, and US assertions that it was an unjustified levying of tribute were mere propaganda to hide welching on a mutually beneficial arrangement that had been freely entered into.
Interesting. I did not know that. So it was kind of like how the Arabs have been screwed for 90 years by the British/American Empire after helping them against the Ottomans?
I wanted a clip of Johnny Carson saying “I did not know that”, but instead, please enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiaHZW4GAyM
1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4
he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
7
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
>historically determined path
man’s free will determines history
How can you talk about the Jefferson Presidency and not mention the various Embargo Acts? Jefferson drove the American economy into depression by forcing a boycott of English and French goods. Massive civil rights violations were required to sustain this: violations of Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Parts of the northeast were in virtual secession, such was the disregard of the law.
Suggest reading Forrest MacDonald’s book on the Jefferson Presidency. He calls Jefferson’s second term a “shipwreck.” Madison, his successor and protege, allowed these abominable acts to expire.
I agree with Jefferson’s self evaluation. His accomplishments, as he listed them on his tombstone were:
1. Author of the Declaration of Independence
2. Author of the Statute of Virginia on Religious Freedom.
3. Founder of the University of Virginia
Nothing about his tour as Governor of Virginis (which was disastrous) or his Presidency (which failed in its second term).
In other words, a great man but an ineffectual executive.
Actually, this same chapter includes a lengthy discussion of the Embargo Acts and its destructive effects. This article is just an excerpt.
Does it bring out the fact that the embargo (and the later invasion of Canada) only spuriously appeared even handed, that it was an extension of the strategic resource side of Napoleon’s “Continental Policy” that mostly hit Britain and not France? That aimed at cutting Britain off from shipbuilding materials like timber and tar, so that the Royal Navy would be eroded into uselessness unless it was kept equally uselessly in port. Britain had to get those materials overseas, originally mainly from the Baltic, but by the time of the Napoleonic Wars it could second source from North America. Even the embargo wasn’t enough to close that off, while Canada remained British – or once Russia stopped its side of the Continental Policy, which led to Napoleon’s invasion of Russia to try to enforce it (and, I suspect, to the US invasion of Canada). France could still access the Baltic and didn’t need to build naval strength anyway so long as Britain deteriorated enough, so the embargo was asymmetric.
Oh yes, none of this is hindsight, though I thought it was when I discovered it. It was a widely known British vulnerability decades earlier, which we can tell from Tom Paine’s mention of it in “Common Sense”.
Comments on this entry are closed.