Is Thomas Jefferson talking about America 2006 with this quote or what?"

[marmar]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

[rosesaylavee]

1. With 2500+ patriots dead,

time for the tyrants to ante up the blood.

[Warpy]

2. Violent revolutions are inconvenient and uncomfortable

even if one is far removed from the fighting. They are to be avoided if at all possible.

I still have hope that the system Jefferson, Madison and others set up is still self correcting to the point that we can avoid one once again.

[bluerum]

3. I don't know. I think that he is saying that when things go wrong

the people have to kick some butz.

Sometimes it is best not to put things off.

[shugh514]

6. New Day, New Way

The people have to kick some butz.
First we have to find the real enemy. It's not the government. It's the Corporations who are controlling our politicians. We don't need guns or violence to get their attention. We have buying power. Wake up! Stop feeding the beast. They can't afford not to listen.

[bluerum]

8. Yes - many wayz to kick butz! nt

[w4rma]

49. It's not the corporations, it's the folks running them. (nt)

[shugh514]

50. It is the corporations

and the problem is the concept of corporate personhood.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/index.html

[w4rma]

52. It's the folks running them and

I'm not the one treating the corporations as people. I'm talking about the folks running the corporations. You're talking about the corporations as someone who can be jailed. It's the ancestors of the folks running those things that got the Supreme Court to distort the law back in the late 1800s to create corporate personhood. And it's those same folks who want the corporations shield them from bad-PR to themselves and lawsuits to themselves, etc., etc.

[shugh514]

53. The problem is not the "shield"

that a corporation provides to the folks running them. If every person who wanted to start a business had to risk their entire assets, then capitalism would not get very far. The fact that a person can start a business and only stand to lose their initial investment is what encourages entrepreneurship.
The problem is that an entity is allowed the same political voice that a citizen has. When corporations with great financial and PR resources are allowed a voice, "We the people" get drowned out.

[HibtoAllah]

10. Inconvenient, probably, necessary, perhaps.

The only problem with violent revolution would be mobilization, last time I checked there are some 80 million gun owners. If even less then 1 percent of that were to wage war against the State, that is a couple hundred thousand fighters (Unfortuneatly most of those are repugs!). God knows that today's and most likely the future's war environment is very disadvantageous to State Armies and very advantageous to non-State warmaking organizations. Starting that fire would have to be done almost from scratch though, no lighters or matches, just wood and string. If the fire could be started before the State arrests or kills the starters, there would be asolutely no stopping it, I think the one-sidedness of the conflict would bring a very quick destruction of the National Government.

After that though, there is the possibility of civil war or at least the break up in the unity of the 50 States. I don't know what the consequences of that would be.

One must remember some of the most insidious dangers of violence, any establishment brought about by violence will be permanently marred and not have the truly desired effect of its' creators, unless their intent is evil. Only nonviolence can create the precedent for a truly wonderful establishment.

[unschooler]

15. Yeah. And they're VIOLENT. I'm for peaceful revolution - NOW.

:patriot:

[Yollam]

28. That sentiment is sound if the system works for you.

The millions the system lets rot and starve and die are probably a lot less attached to it.

I have 2 kids, so I wouldn't support anything rash lightly.

But things are really, really bad for a lot of people, and the media is glossing over it with rosy economic reports and deceptive unemployment numbers. All it would take would be a few economic shocks and there would be serious unrest.

[originalpckelly]

29. Another Inconvenient Truth(nt)

[SaveElmer]

4. As great a man as Jefferson was...

He was not infallible...

He was the author of the Kentucky Resolves, the intellectual underpinning for nullification and secession.

"Notes on the State of Virginia," while useful in many ways, also contained repugnant speculations on alleged physical defects of African Americans. All the while he is sleeping with one of his own slaves.

His hypocrisy is well evident when contrasting his public statements on slavery, and his private behavior. He never freed one slave while he lived, and only freed members of the Hemmings family on his death. Most of his slaves were sold off to pay his mounting debts.

His behavior toward Alexander Hamilton and John Adams was often repugnant. Not that those two, particularly Hamilton didn't give nearly as good as they got.

And his ill advised enthusiasm for the French Revolution in its early stages, among other things, led him to finance tabloid journalists attacking George Washington.

[marmar]

5. "All the while he is sleeping with one of his own slaves."

Absolutely. In many ways, he was quite contemptable. But I just thought this quote was eerily prophetic.

[SaveElmer]

9. I don't want people to think...

That I do not admire Jefferson...

Everyone has their defects, and Jefferson perhaps had more than many others...but on the whole he is well deserving of the high regard he receives.

If it weren't for Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, we would probably not be here!

[Poppyseedman]

21. Don't forget Madison

"Father of the Constitution"

He pretty much formed the "Republican, or Jeffersonian, Party" today which we call the Democratic Party.

[SaveElmer]

23. And George Mason...

Though I think Washington, Jefferson and Adams are most reponsible for Independance.

Adams and Jefferson were not directly involved in writing the constitution. Both were in Europe at the time, although Adams had anticipated the form the constitution would take in the Massachusetts constitution (which he wrote) - the longest continuosly serving democratic constitution in the world I believe.

Why Adams does not have a memorial in DC boggles my mind...although there is an effort afoot to build one.

[originalpckelly]

31. I think you might want to revise that:

"If it weren't for Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, we would probably not be here!"

Without king george the second we wouldn't be here. <I made a point of not capitalizing the name.

[SaveElmer]

34. Think you mean King George III...

Unless you are giving George II credit for birthing George III :-)...

Of course there were many involved...I was restricting my comments to the Americans who made it possible...

[originalpckelly]

36. No no...

Bush is king george the second. His father was king george the first.

[SaveElmer]

38. Ahhhh...

Gotcha...

[originalpckelly]

39. ...

:-)

[xenu]

46. yes, contemptible

As were those who still can't "overcome" the changes brought by the Civil Rights movement in the sixties.

[marmar]

48. Yawn....

[unschooler]

7. Jefferson wasn't perfect, but, living out here in Cascadia, secession

doesn't sound like such a bad idea. ;-)

[Poppyseedman]

12. Actually, Jefferson most likely did not sleep with Sally Hemming,

DNA points to his cousin who fathered her children

[SaveElmer]

13. DNA is the same...

The "Y" Chromosone test shows that some of Sally Hemming's descendants were releated to a direct descendant of Thomas Jefferson's Grandfather. That, combined with overwhelming circumstantial evidence (diary entries for example, showing that Jefferson was at Monticello 9 months before the births of those children fathered by a Jefferson) points to a virtual certitude that it was Thomas Jefferson and not his cousin. The notion that is was another male Jefferson, particularly by his descendants through his legitimate daughter, is raised by those wishing to deny what is apparently the truth.

[Sal Minella]

30. Sally Hemmings' father also fathered Jefferson's dead wife.

Some people still don't know that, apparently -- Jefferson's father-in-law presented Jefferson with a slave he had fathered himself, Sally. The complexities of feelings on all sides must have been rather overwhelming, I would think.

[SaveElmer]

33. Yep that is true...

Sally Hemmings and Martha Jefferson were half-sisters. No portraits exist, but she was apparently very nearly white in complexion, and resembled Martha. Possibly reminded Jefferson of his dead wife. I am sure he had feelings for her. But the fact does remain he also owned her.

[Sal Minella]

That's what I meant about the complexities of feelings. As a half-sister,

Sally no doubt had personality and intellectual traits as well as physical traits that reminded Jefferson of his wife. And if Martha fell for Tom, why wouldn't Sally also? Horribly complicated by being a slave mistress.

Awkward all around, eh?

[Vidar]

43. Didn't know that part of the story.

[rman]

51. Does that mean Jefferson is wrong in the quote in the OP?

[SaveElmer]

54. Well two things...

This quote was made in reference to the Shay's rebellion which took place before the new Constitution was adopted. In fact, disgust over the rebellion provided impetus for the effort to create a strong central government. Jefferson was perhaps on the wrong side of opinion here.

Secondly, the founding fathers are often viewed as infallible, and anything they said is now used as proof of the wisdom of some current statement or policy. The righties are very adept at twisting the words and meaning behind the statemenst made by the founding fathers.

My point was that Thomas Jefferson was a flawed man, with many flawed ideas, and simply the fact that he made this statement does not make it correct. Despite my disgust at the current regime, we are no where near needing a violent revolution of the type this statement apparently endorses.

[rman]

56. Everyone has flaws - but what does that prove?

Nothing.

[Poppyseedman]

11. The quote in the letter is about the Shay rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

The complete letter is linked here for content.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl64.htm

Eight years later, Washington and Hamilton put down the Whiskey rebellion.

To answer your question: Jefferson, would not recognize what he and the others founded 225 years ago.

[The Brethren]

14. I think

he and the other founders would be absolutely shocked if they were here today. And I think Jefferson would say..."time for a rebellion!!"

History just keeps on repeating itself.

[Poppyseedman]

16. No he would say

"Time for a revolution"

[The Brethren]

17. I stand corrected.

:) :dem:

Yes, a revolution, a much needed one at that!

[xenu]

47. He wouldn't recognize it

Because the fascist Anglo culture exemplified by George III is dying! That's a good thing, even if you didn't vote for the current administration.

What's next? Lamenting the abolition of slavery?

[fearthem]

18. Compared to Jefferson, Bush is a simpleton.

[Poppyseedman]

20. Not to give bush any credit, but compared to Jefferson

all most all of our twentieth century Presidents are simpletons

[fearthem]

22. That's true.

[SaveElmer]

26. Well intellectually speaking...

Wilson, FDR, Carter, and Clinton are no slouches.

[stop the bleeding]

19. I think all Americans could do themselves well and their country

to look back upon the good ideas from our Founding Fathers.


Time for a revolution.

[BrklynLiberal]

24. kicked and recommended!

[fearnobush]

25. Two stolen national elections = Revolution.

It's time folks or this nation is dead.

[originalpckelly]

37. America is already dead.

No one has realized it yet.

[marmar]

41. That's not hyperbole...

If these don't change in November, it's United States of America: 1776-2000 R.I.P.

[rucky]

27. Why does Thomas Jefferson hate America? n/t

[marmar]

32. He'd hate this one!

:hurts:

[Yollam]

35. Of course violent revolution is not necessary.

If the millions of people who disagree with POS Bush and war were to conduct a nationwide general strike, it would bring the economy to a standstill and force the government to enact change.


But I don't see that happening. People always wait too late, until poverty gets so bad that the poor take to the streets with molotov cocktails...

[marmar]

40. Agree 100 %

They'll strike in a heartbeat in other places, including advanced Western democracies such as France, but not here. And when it's too late, you get the extreme reaction.

[wagthedogwar]

42. In the spirit of 3 strikes, your out (baha'i idiocy)

I beleive it's '3 stolen elections does a violent revolution make'...
I predict a lot of smashed voting machines and burned out polling places if the pukes steal it again in 2008

[Gabi Hayes]

44. nothing but sedition and treason, if you axe me:

[xenu]

45. So 9/11 was about

making "manure" out of people for "liberty"??

I think that taking Jefferson's words out of their historical
context is most un-scholarly.

The tyrants' numbers are dwindling, that's why they feel the need to co-opt Jefferson - to protest the fading of their "culture".

[DFW]

55. Jefferson's words

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new Guards for their future security"

The radical right would label these words traitorous liberal drivel, and smirk in disbelief
when told they were from the very document whose signing we celebrate every July 4th.

And yet--they are no less true, and no less relevant than they are today, right now.