Jefferson saw it coming back then

[twyacht]

As a former resident of Charlotte, there is a historical marker, showing the spot where the Mecklenberg Declaration was drafted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecklenburg_Declaration_of_Independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence is allegedly the first declaration of independence made in the Thirteen Colonies during the American Revolution. It was supposedly signed on May 20, 1775, at Charlotte, North Carolina, by a committee of citizens of Mecklenburg County, who declared independence from Great Britain after hearing of the battle of Lexington. If the story is true, the Mecklenburg Declaration preceded the United States Declaration of Independence by more than a year. The authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration has been disputed since it was first published in 1819, forty-four years after it was reputedly written. There is no conclusive evidence to confirm the original document's existence, and no reference to it has been found in extant newspapers from 1775.

As most politicians, Jefferson did some things right, and wrong. A fledgling country to boot didn't help.   He had an agenda and policies, that some hated.

Maybe that's why he is on the "obscure" two dollar bill.

[Pathfinder]

There was no LEGITIMATE argument against  acquiring new territory, that's covered in the Constitution Article 4 Sec. 3 Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

However I do not doubt that some complained about the COST.

I have read some things recently that have left me with "uncomfortable" questions about the constitution. I will have to get hold of a copy of the ANTI federalist Papers before I can articulate them well, but 3 things I can mention,
First, While the rights of the STATES, and limitations of Federal Govt. are fairly well stated by the constitution ,it contains no method of ENFORCEMENT beyond insurrection, to prevent the types of encroachment we have seen. Also the fact that the rights of the individual , and limitations on Federal powers are amendments indicates that they were after thoughts, added to get votes for the "real Agenda", just like earmarks today, and that the Framers had no real concern or interest in the Rights of the citizens.
Second thing that bothers me is that it was adopted for ECONOMIC reasons, Debt was not strongly protected under the Articles of Confederation so European money interests were reluctant to invest here, The Constitution was written to reassure Financial interests.  Granted that the resulting investment made possible the Industrial Revolution, I can't get away from the fact that Alexander Hamilton was an ambitious schemer, deeply involved with the Morris' and the New York Money interests. One of the main public proponents of the Constitution, he was continuously maneuvering to strengthen federal power.
Lastly, All we have to go by in our understanding of the founders "intent" are public records written by those with a vested interest, I can't escape the thought that this is some what akin to trying to understand modern politics based on the sound bites on NBC.
Just some thoughts.

Tom - that is awesome. I love it when folks here make me think. A couple of thoughts, maybe contrary ones, let's see.

1. Enforcement was not considered, I believe, as quite bluntly the likes of our recent run of presidents was no more considered by the Founders than was a trip to the moon. This was the Age of Reason afterall, and even a King George was reasonable in some respects. A Caesar they could imagine. They could no more envision a bho than they could envision the atomic bomb.

And you're right, the Amendments were specifically added to the body of the Constitution, not so much as an afterthought, more like a guarantee - without rewriting the whole Constitution all over again. It was specifically in response to the fears and concerns raised by the anti-Federalists against a strong Federal government - and yes, to get it passed.

I think, Tom, that you might be a little harsh on the Founders and their attitudes toward rights. Besides the obvious issue of slavery, I think there was a genuine interest in rights as both an intellectual exercise and a real sense of injustice by the Crown against the interests of the colonies and the gentlemen of the day. On the other hand, the Electoral College is an excellent example of their attitudes toward the common man - and recognition of the realities of demagogues. Still, I think many of the Founders saw rights as applying to all - slavery again excepted - so maybe to all freemen?

2. Hamilton was absolutely a strong Federalist, and probably would have been a good example of the people the other Founders warned us against if he had not been whacked by Burr in the duel (Burr being an interesting nut-job too). To put it more into context, though, this was a time where nobodies - like Hamilton - could achieve what we now call the American Dream and actually become somebody through their own efforts alone. Hamilton IIRC was born in the West Indies as an illegitimate son. And here he became one of the most powerful men in the early US through his own actions. We cannot imagine the power of that change today, we have no frame of reference. In modern vernacular, he was on the hump and saw strong central government as a way to achieve that - since he was part of it. The Federal Reserve was started in part as his legacy a century after he was killed.

3. Sound bites - perhaps, but the 30-some articles published by the Federalists alone are a tad more than just a bite. And the anti-Federalist papers were subsequently published to counter the arguments put forth by the Federalists. Perhaps "sound bites" typical of their day. And they all had vested interests - both sides. I have not personally read them, but I recall we also have letters from the protagonists to their friends and family as source materials too.

[tombogan03884]

Interesting reply Pathfinder. And as I said I DO need to get a copy of "The Anti Federalist Papers".
Can you imagine Biden and Giethner shooting it out.

Slavery was a sticky issue even then. Blacks freely served in the Continental Army, the first man killed in the Boston Massacre, Crispus Attucks, was a free black. Some of the founders were abolitionists like Franklin, but many were caught on the horns of a dilemma, they BELIEVED in human equality, but their income was dependent on the cheap labor supplied by slavery, Jefferson solved the problem on a personal basis by specifying manumission (freedom) in his will, When he no longer depended on them they were freed. In the ,then poorer North they just raised big families, more fun to acquire , cheaper to maintain and less likely to run away.
The industrial revolution led  the people of the less fertile Northern states into the factories were even at the low wages of the day they could earn more than on the generally hardscrabble farm land, while the southern states had to increase agricultural production to keep the factories supplied with raw materials, increasing their dependence on slave labor.
The south's increase in dependence and the north's decreasing acquaintance with the institution, led to a hardening of opinion, while the "average" person tended to take the issue for granted, what would now be called "Northern Liberals", with no experience of the circumstances ( Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown etc.) became increasingly more inflammatory in what "Southern Planters" , who's economic well being still depended on slave labor, saw as attack on their very existence.
This unresolved issue of the Constitutional Convention aggravated the dispute over whether State or Federal Govt. held the ultimate power and of course eventually led to the Civil WAR.

[twyacht]

Ol' Thomas J, also must have had some "persuasion" from Sally Hemmings.

It made the news last year, regarding TJ's "extended" family.

http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Printer-friendly formatBrief Account

The claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello, entered the public arena during Jefferson's first term as president, and it has remained a subject of discussion and disagreement for nearly two centuries.

In September 1802, political journalist James T. Callender, a disappointed office-seeker who had once been an ally of Jefferson, wrote in a Richmond newspaper that Jefferson had for many years "kept, as his concubine, one of his own slaves." "Her name is Sally," Callender continued, adding that Jefferson had "several children" by her.

Although there had been rumors of a sexual relationship between Jefferson and a slave before 1802, Callender's article spread the story widely. It was taken up by Jefferson's Federalist opponents and was published in many newspapers during the remainder of Jefferson's presidency.

Jefferson's policy was to offer no public response to personal attacks, and he apparently made no explicit public or private comment on this question (although a private letter of 1805 has been interpreted by some individuals as a denial of the story). Sally Hemings left no known accounts.

[tombogan03884]

 Any one want to guesstimate how many guys or just politicians have gotten in trouble because of women ?

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Interesting talk about slavery back in the day. Remember the main objecion to it, other than the very real moral concerns, was that it would advantage the large southern states at the cost of the north. The 3/5ths clause was objected to because it gave the south extra represention based on  non-voting, non-citizen poulation. As Adams correctly pointed out, this gave representation based on property. This was fixed in the 15th which states that states voting represention will be decreased if they don't allow all free men to vote (the first time gender entered the document).

The main problem going into the War though, wasn't northern liberals. It was Dredd Scott. In his laughable, but worth reading, 84 page opinion, Taney demonstrated the dangers of judicial over reach. We talk today about how he declared blacks could never be citizens. This isn't what threw the grenade in the room. The problem was that in attempting to make aboltionism go away, he said slaveholders rights were protected by the 5th ammendments takings clause. This was the first time the 5th had ever been applied against the states rather than the feds. (The bill of rights really wasn't nationalized unil the mid-twentieth century, actually you could argue it wasn't fully until the Heller case).

What this did was nationalize slavery. I could now bring my slave from Georia to Massachusetts and set up shop. This, understandbly freaked out labor. It became a bread and butter issue as opposed to just a moral one. You can guess which was a better motivator.

As far as the the Anti-federalists they worth a read. For a summation of the arguments againts, read Hamiltons Federalist 84. If you want be really afraid of our school system, remember that these were published as broadsheets in papers, not something academics read.
fightingquaker13

[Sghiandhu]

Interesting reply Pathfinder. And as I said I DO need to get a copy of "The Anti Federalist Papers".
Can you imagine Biden and Giethner shooting it out.

Slavery was a sticky issue even then. Blacks freely served in the Continental Army, the first man killed in the Boston Massacre, Crispus Attucks, was a free black. Some of the founders were abolitionists like Franklin, but many were caught on the horns of a dilemma, they BELIEVED in human equality, but their income was dependent on the cheap labor supplied by slavery, Jefferson solved the problem on a personal basis by specifying manumission (freedom) in his will, When he no longer depended on them they were freed. In the ,then poorer North they just raised big families, more fun to acquire , cheaper to maintain and less likely to run away.
The industrial revolution led  the people of the less fertile Northern states into the factories were even at the low wages of the day they could earn more than on the generally hardscrabble farm land, while the southern states had to increase agricultural production to keep the factories supplied with raw materials, increasing their dependence on slave labor.
The south's increase in dependence and the north's decreasing acquaintance with the institution, led to a hardening of opinion, while the "average" person tended to take the issue for granted, what would now be called "Northern Liberals", with no experience of the circumstances ( Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown etc.) became increasingly more inflammatory in what "Southern Planters" , who's economic well being still depended on slave labor, saw as attack on their very existence.
This unresolved issue of the Constitutional Convention aggravated the dispute over whether State or Federal Govt. held the ultimate power and of course eventually led to the Civil WAR.

Much as I admire the multi-faceted (and very complicated) Jefferson; it was not he who manumitted his slaves upon his death, but George Washington --who againgave us an example of leadership (perhaps, deliberately so with an eye to his historical legacy). He was, I believe the only notable slaveowner to do so. His many examples of personal, military, and political leadership cause me to admire him also.

[fightingquaker13]

Much as I admire the multi-faceted (and very complicated) Jefferson; it was not he who manumitted his slaves upon his death, but George Washington --who againgave us an example of leadership (perhaps, deliberately so with an eye to his historical legacy). He was, I believe the only notable slaveowner to do so. His many examples of personal, military, and political leadership cause me to admire him also.

 

Your're partiall right, but your ignoring Robert E. Lee. Ironically, he freed his, Grant didn't. As I've said before, history is a complicated thing.
fightingquaker13

[tombogan03884]

Much as I admire the multi-faceted (and very complicated) Jefferson; it was not he who manumitted his slaves upon his death, but George Washington --who againgave us an example of leadership (perhaps, deliberately so with an eye to his historical legacy). He was, I believe the only notable slaveowner to do so. His many examples of personal, military, and political leadership cause me to admire him also.

Crap, wrong Founding Father  This from Wiki
Biographers point out that Jefferson was deeply in debt and had encumbered his slaves by notes and mortgages; he could not free them until he was free of debt, which never happened.......
......The downturn in land prices after 1819 pushed Jefferson further into debt. Jefferson finally emancipated his five most trusted slaves (two his mixed-race sons) and petitioned the legislature to allow them to stay in Virginia. After his death, his family sold the remainder of the slaves to settle his high debts.[90]

 

Your're partiall right, but your ignoring Robert E. Lee. Ironically, he freed his, Grant didn't. As I've said before, history is a complicated thing.
fightingquaker13

Technically they weren't "his" slaves, His wife inherited them when her Father, the Grand son of Martha Washington.
Lee himself lived on his Army pay as his fathers poor investments and misfortunes had driven the Family deeply into debt.
The ONLY reason Lee served the Confederacy, instead of accepting Lincoln's offer of command of all union forces was that while he opposed secession, he could not bring himself to wage war on his native Virginia, it was a decision he always regretted being forced into, and the reason he NEVER referred to Union forces as "the enemy" but always "those people". 

[tt11758]

Any one want to guesstimate how many guys or just politicians have gotten in trouble because of women ?

Gotten in trouble because of women, or gotten women "in trouble"?