From: Sophie Maddox (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 18 2000 - 10:26:39 PST
Jeff Bone <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Phphphphphphttttttt! I can't find anything in my "Portable Thomas
> to support anything close to that contention.
It could be you have the condensed version. Maybe you didn't look hard
enough or have your interruption or you take the word too literally and
what it has developed into by today's standards. It can cover many things
in many degrees and ways. Jefferson advocated a decentralized agrarian
republic. He recognized the value of a strong central government in
foreign relations, but he did not want it strong in other respects.
Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom. Jefferson once
said "I am not a friend to a very energetic government." Then you have
Alexander Hamilton who feared anarchy and thought in terms of order.
Hamilton sought a strong central government acting in the interests of
commerce and industry. Hamilton devised a plan for a national bank with
branches all over the country. Jefferson opposed and argued that the
Constitution expressly enumerates all the powers belonging to the federal
government and reserves all other powers to the states. Nowhere was it
empowered to set up a bank.
At that time we needed both influences. We were lucky that we had both
men and could, in time, fuse and reconcile their philosophies. IMHO in
modern terminology Jefferson could be called a socialist.
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 18 2000 - 10:32:23 PST