Empire of liberty

Economics Political Theory
1

Did Jefferson support non interventionism or did he support bombing the world to make it safe for democracy? I’ve read that the former was Jefferson’s foreign policy, and that the latter was purely wilson’s… However, I recently read about the empire of liberty and it sounds like it advocates bombing the hell out of the world’s population to make the world safe for democracy, so I’m quite discombobulated.

There was jacksonian foreign policy which believed that America was at risk if americans didn’t conquer the world, but that’s different than the wilsonian foreign policy.

Thomas Jefferson, Revolutionary period, and history
Thomas Jefferson, Revolutionary period, and history
2

He supported Americans bringing “civilization” to the barbarians. In this regard he is the proto-Wilisonian or you can say that Wilson was something akin to a Jeffersonian in foreign policy. Perhaps a little more zealous then Jefferson though.

3

@Andrew Cain: What an absurd comparison…

@OP: Do you know anything about the history of American foreign policy?

What the fuck did you read? Not to point out the anachronism, but “bombs” as you use the term, weren’t a thing…

You seem “discombobulated” because you haven’t absorbed a coherent history of foreign policy actions and circumstances. If you cannot tell the differences between Jefferson and Wilson you need to read more. For God’s sake, Jefferson avoided war even though the Congress was begging for him to act on their zeal. Madison is the one who acted on a declaration of war and got the Capital burned down (not to mention the farms and churches all over the states)…

Wilson decived people into thinking he was peaceful, but it was WILSON who turned WWI into a “world” war. If the US wouldn’t have been involved the war would have been contained to one continent (arguably two). It is Wilson who popularized the concept of what (I) some people refer to as world government…Jefferson, more than likely, would have liked the U.S. to have split. It was his concept Nullification that the Southern politicians used as justification to secede, after all (Madison had a similar, but much harder to achieve political notion of secession).

Have you ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine (even though it was J.Q. Adams that wrote it)? It was written after Jefferson’s terms and it was what declared that the U.S. would turn hostile toward nations attempting to influence the Americas (both of them).

Don’t go all libertarian with history either. “Oh, well if he really cared about property or freedom he should/would have…yada yada.” Jefferson was the most radical (other than (Paine who wanted certain religions taxed in VA; Madison and Jefferson stopped this) and a few of the SoL) Founder bent on liberty as an end. His wantings to “expand” the empire were merely reflections of limiting and diminishing the power of the British. And, yes, the common view of “barbarian” 250 years ago was anyone who couldn’t speak Latin…if you couldn’t speak Latin, you couldn’t know the Bible. Jefferson himself despised this notion (he abolished the Indian re-education portion of W&M while Governor), but he did use the same language and terminology to express his ideas.

4

“What an absurd comparison..”

Not at all. Both believed that Americanism should be spread to counter-act a perceived threat. For Jefferson it was Britian, for Wilson it was militant European monarchies. Wilson was just more self-righteous about it, hence my zealousness comment. Both believed in a frontier-like thesis. For Jefferson it was Benjamin Rush’s comments on developing a frontier, for Wilson it was Frederick Jackson Turner. In both theses the premise is that a frontier presents a machination that is required for a developing people. In Benjamin Rush’s writings, Jefferson liked the first stage of development, the agrarian stage in which squatters who were sympathetic to Jeffersonian ideals would tame the land and work it. It represented the independent man, a man who was self-sufficient and was not tainted by mercantile notions like Hamiltonian Federalists. For Frederick Jackson Turner’s thesis, Wilson believed that the frontier acted as a safety value for the social upheaval of the late 19th century. He also believed the frontier was the basis for American values such as independence and liberty. What it meant to be American could be best represented by frontier life according to Wilson and that is why he was so attached to Frederick Jackson Turner’s thesis. A thesis that demanded a new frontier for continued American development, especially economic development that so happened to coincide with Theodore Roosevelt’s (and others) policy of extending American economic dominance into Eastern markets such as China. And do you know who wanted to open the quickest trade route to China? Thomas Jefferson!

History is fun…isn’t it?

5

This is the basis of every american politician, first of all. Second, Jefferson’s notions of secession (he stated that he thought we would end up with two or three different unions in North America) are completely at odds with the concept of “spreading americanism.” Unless by Americanism you mean federated republics…which is in no way the same as expanding corporate dominance (as per the post 1886 US economy). Really in the stages of paradigm shifts in US history the ones after the civil war are almost impossible to compare to the pre-civil war paradigms. The corporate dominated economy was never even known to Jefferson. States could still de-charter corporations (virtually) at will during his day. TR and Wilson helped develop it to what it is today. (Most of my post was directed at the OP’s comment about Jefferson supporting the bombing of other people in the world; something patently untrue, but that could be said about TR and Wilson).

Oh yeah? So this makes them identical? So the British bankers that had their hands in Wilson’s administration didn’t have anything to do with our allying with them? It was all about Wilson’s “ideals.” “The 14 points” is all that matters? The focus on words in politics is absurd. Rarely does rhetoric flesh out into exact motivations anyway. And, if anything, rhetoric is there is disguise what true motivations are..

Jefferson supported secessionism and Wilson world government. Wilson’s economy was mercantilist. Jefferson is the one responsible for the intellectual defense against the mercanitlists. Just like every fucking generation of American politicians, after the first, they use the words of the founders to backstop their own ambitions. Jefferson was not at all like Wilson in this regard.

Frederick Jackson Turner’s economy was heavy into railroads and production. The massive amounts of production happening at that time is the reason why american businessmen felt the need to expand markets. Not because they wanted to expand “americanism”, but “profitism.”

You say that since Jefferson wanted to trade with China that that is equivalent of TR misdeeds (United Fruit, National city bank, etc.)? That is absurd. Jefferson is the one who wanted to prevent corporate/state monopolies in the Federal law. TR helped the monopolies that sprung up after the Santa Clara decision.

And what is wrong with trading with the Orient? I don’t recall Jefferson telling anyone to send the military over there to help the banks… (Don’t even compare Nat. City in China to Jefferson in Tripoli. The circumstances for Jefferson were defensive, but the later century was offensive.)

Not if rhetoric is placed as the foundation of observation and circumstances of actions are ignored.

6

“This is the basis of every american politician, first of all. Second, Jefferson’s notions of secession (he stated that he thought we would end up with two or three different unions in North America) are completely at odds with the concept of “spreading americanism.” Unless by Americanism you mean federated republics…which is in no way the same as expanding corporate dominance (as per the post 1886 US economy). Really in the stages of paradigm shifts in US history the ones after the civil war are almost impossible to compare to the pre-civil war paradigms. The corporate dominated economy was never even known to Jefferson. States could still de-charted corporations at will during his day. TR and Wilson helped develop it to what it is today. (Most of my post was directed at the OP’s comment about Jefferson supporting the bombing of other people in the world; something patently untrue.)”

Secession is not at odds with Americanism. In fact it has nothing to do with it in relation to the topic we are discussing. I do not know why you brought secession up. You think corporate dominance is a post-civil war dilemma, why? State government established price fixing before the civil war on multiple commodities such as corn, liquor, wine, tobacco and various food items. Licensing was in effect on various stores such as taverns. Tariffs on molasses. Trade embargoes with Britain. Honestly, what in the gilded age do you not see in the early Republic? The OP did not make a comment about Jefferson wanting to bomb people. He asked a question. Notice the question mark at the end of the first sentence. So far all you have done is deride him and use unnecessary foul language. Be better then this.

“Oh yeah? So this makes them identical? So the British bankers that had their hands in Wilson’s administration didn’t have anything to do with our allying with them? It was all about Wilson’s “ideals.” “The 14 points” is all that matters? The focus on words in politics is absurd. Rarely does rhetoric flesh out into exact motivations anyway. And, if anything, rhetoric is there is disguise what true motivations are..”

Could this point about rhetoric as a disguise not be applied to Jefferson and his concept of Empire of Liberty? Jefferson had principles, just like every other individual. Wilson and Jefferson are not identical. I never claimed they were. Similarities does not make one identical. We are both similar in that we are human beings but that does not make us identical human beings.

“Jefferson supported secessionism and Wilson world government. Wilson’s economy was mercantilist. Jefferson is the one responsible for the intellectual defense against the mercanitlists. Just like every fucking generation of American politicians, after the first, they use the words of the founders to backstop their own ambitions. Jefferson was not at all like Wilson in this regard.”

Again, we arrive at rhetoric. I do not need to rehash an old point but I would like to remind you that Jefferson did establish trade embargoes and tariffs during his presidency. I think you exaggerate his “role” in defense against mercantilist policies.

“Frederick Jackson Turner’s economy was heavy into railroads and production. The massive amounts of production happening at that time is the reason why american businessmen felt the need to expand markets. Not because they wanted to expand “americanism”, but “profitism.””

Oh please, mercantilism was around long before railroads and “production,” whatever you mean by that. The “Americanism” is at the heart of the empire building during the late 19th century. America was suppose to be the guiding light of the world because they were the Anglo-Saxon race, or the Protestant faith, or because they were the emerging economic power. Take your pick. Brooks Adams (Funny how the grandson of John Quincy Adams, who you admitted wrote the Monroe Doctrine which he did) would be the man who advocated that the winds of progress had reached the United States and it was now being called by destiny to lead the world into a new age of economy where the United States would lead the world market. If that does not smack of Americanism then I do not think I am talking to a sane audience.

“You say that since Jefferson wanted to trade with China that that is equivalent of TR misdeeds (United Fruit, National city bank, etc.)? That is absurd. Jefferson is the one who wanted to prevent corporate/state monopolies in the Federal law. TR helped the monopolies that sprung up after the Santa Clara decision.”

It has nothing to do with trust-busting and monopolies. It has everything to do with extending economic power abroad. Jefferson and TR were after the same target. The target being the China market. The perceived limitless consumers. One of the differences is simply that TR made more progress toward this goal then Jefferson in the sense that TR actually helped conquer foreign countries such as Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines in order to reach the Chinese market. Jefferson had a more difficult time because even during his presidency the frontier was considered places like Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky etc. The Spanish had settled the western coast and Boston traders did trade for otter pelts and tallow in California but it was much more time consuming to go around South America because there was no Panama canal.

“And what is wrong with trading with the Orient? I don’t recall Jefferson telling anyone to send the military over there to help the banks…”

No, he was too busy waging war on the Barbary pirates and really the Chinese already had a military on their lands. They were the British. In a few decades the Opium wars would start and..what a surprise Commodore Perry would show up in Japan opening Japan up to Western trade throughout the land and no longer just in the port of Nagasaki which only the Dutch were allowed.

7

Yes, he did.

Um, at what point in time is “this.” Oh, no you said “then” instead of “than.” I know you will say it was an ‘honest mistake’, but I know too many people who make that mistake everytime to buy it…It is not a simple spelling error. Don’t tell me what fucking language to use, either.

Except, Virginia handed over the land for all of those states peacefully. Why would Jefferson have had a difficult time because of this?

Well, his “role” was introducing French economics to the US, which was being run by the heavily favored British policies.

Exactly, the late 19th century. I didn’t try to say otherwise. Nor did I claim that mercantilism was “new..” I said that Jefferson didn’t support the corporatization of the world in the name of America. He did, however, promote extending the republicanism of America (the same republicanism that was destroyed during the civil war and shortly after corporations were taken at the Federal level instead of the state.)

Okay…umm, how does this relate to Jefferson? Have you read Bacon’s “New Atlantis” (it is short if you want to read it now)? It had a huge influence on Jefferson and it focused on the development of science. That is what Jefferson envisioned, not corporatist expansion through warfare.

I admitted? What did you think I was getting at?

I also like how you slid a snide comment in there in the same post that you told me not to do that.

But, Jefferson’s vision was not at all developed under the same circumstances as TR. TR knew that the US was one economic powerhouse, Jefferson died thinking we would be split up. That is my point. You cannot compare them and say they were “after the same thing” if that “same thing” is as broad as trade with a foreign country. What foreign countries did Jefferson help to “conquer?” I’d also like to see a cite of Jefferson saying that he wished to find “limitless consumers.”

[

You imply that Jefferson had this mentality, which I sincerely doubt. Oh, and you used “then” instead of “than” again. If you understand English syntax “then” your sentence doesn’t make any sense. maybe, I should tell you what language to use. Be better than that. (“Than” is comparative. “Then” is temporal.)

Even after I told you not to bother comparing them due to circumstance…you did it anyway. I already knew that was the line of reasoning that you were using. You are abusing context. Jefferson did that because merchant ships were being hijacked not because banks wanted to control resources there.

8

@aristophanes: I’ve always believed that Jefferson was not a democratic peace theorist (which states you need to bomb the hell out of people to make them pro-democracy) like wilson was and that jefferson was anti war. I even believe that Jefferson inspired Cleveland and van buren to be non interventionist. However, Wikipedia’s article on empire of liberty makes him sound like a neocon so that is why I asked… it seems to me to paint a very different picture of Jefferson. I’m assuming it is bunk, but I came here to ask.

All of that said, you made some good arguments that have helped me conclude that the article (or at least my interpretation) of it was bunk. In particular, your argument about banking and mercantilism pretty much concluded that Jefferson was not and could not be a neocon… that is, Jefferson would have favored a mint and a central bank if he was an imperialist democratic peace theorist.

9

"Um, at what point in time is “this.” Oh, no you said “then” instead of “than.” I know you will say it was an ‘honest mistake’, but I know too many people who make that mistake everytime to buy it…It is not a simple spelling error. Don’t tell me what fucking language to use, either."

This is not necessarily a point in time but could be applied to a condition. I meant this as you being in the present state of unnecessary aggression. You are right though in saying I should of used than. I think you should have understood the sentiment more than the correctness though.

“Except, Virginia handed over the land for all of those states peacefully. Why would Jefferson have had a difficult time because of this?”

So are you asking why Thomas Jefferson would have a more difficult time reaching the Chinese market in the early 19th century? I just want to be sure if that is what you are asking. Virginia did not really “hand over” land per say. The territories were established by early Ordinance acts. A lot of states claimed territory that extended into the frontier. Virginia was one, Pennsylvania another. Anyways that is another topic. If you are asking why would Jefferson have a difficult time during his presidency because the frontier only extended to places like Ohio then you are missing the point I was trying to make. American development only extended to the Ohio valley during Jefferson’s administration therefore it would be naturally difficult to have a presence on the western coast. The frontier was geographical cut off from the eastern seaboard unless one went down to New Orleans and sailed to the coast. This holds true until the development of canals like the Ohio and Erie canal, railroads and telegraph system which helped quicken transportation. Do you understand what I mean now?

“Well, his “role” was introducing French economics to the US, which was being run by the heavily favored British policies.”

By creating embargoes and tariffs, quite a introduction.

“Exactly, the late 19th century. I didn’t try to say otherwise. Nor did I claim that mercantilism was “new..” I said that Jefferson didn’t support the corporatization of the world in the name of America. He did, however, promote extending the republicanism of America (the same republicanism that was destroyed during the civil war and shortly after corporations were taken at the Federal level instead of the state.)”

Actually you said it was not “Americanism,” it was “profitism”

See:

“Not because they wanted to expand “americanism”, but “profitism.””

Anyways, Jefferson did not want to “corporatize” the world. He wanted to “agarianize” it, if such a term can be used, because farming respresented the perfect lifestyle. Self-sufficency, independence. I mean he was not completely against industrialism but not to the point that say a Hamiltonian would be. Again you are trying to play that “identical game.” You are comparing Jefferson exactly to Roosevelt and since they are not identical, you are dismissing any similarities.

“Okay…umm, how does this relate to Jefferson? Have you read Bacon’s “New Atlantis” (it is short if you want to read it now)? It had a huge influence on Jefferson and it focused on the development of science. That is what Jefferson envisioned, not corporatist expansion through warfare.”

It has many similarities with Jefferson’s “Americanism.” At its heart it still holds the nationalistic notion that America is something of a bulwark against dark powers. America through some facet is meant to influence world events and establish its dominance for benevolent purposes. Joseph Stromberg touched lightly on this in one of his lectures though I cannot recall off the topic of my head. It is this millennialist notion that the American revolution must continue around the world. A millennialist notion that in many ways continued onto the Gilded age. I think it is fascinating stuff and really the world we have today in terms of social norms is established in the early 19th century. Things like gender roles, social perceptions on race, views on criminal punishment, culinary culture.

"I admitted? What did you think I was getting at?

I also like how you slid a snide comment in there in the same post that you told me not to do that."

I was just trying to make you feel like you made a good point. I was being sardonic before and I have a bad habit of doing that. I am trying to break it though.

“But, Jefferson’s vision was not at all developed under the same circumstances as TR. TR knew that the US was one economic powerhouse, Jefferson died thinking we would be split up. That is my point. You cannot compare them and say they were “after the same thing” if that “same thing” is as broad as trade with a foreign country. What foreign countries did Jefferson help to “conquer?” I’d also like to see a cite of Jefferson saying that he wished to find “limitless consumers.””

America as an economic powerhouse was really only coming to fruition before World War I because of things like the Panic of 1893. It was still rocky for the US even though the industrial revolution came after the war. I would say it started with the winning of the Spanish-American war because America cemented its sphere of influence in the Americas. On the topic of Jefferson conquering countries, it would depend upon what you mean by conquer. Jefferson had a stadial view of history and saw the Indians as something akin to children who needed to be guided toward progress. Remember that “Empire of Liberty” and how it will bring “civilization” to barbarians. Jefferson was not as zealous as say Andrew Jackson in terms of Indian relations but he was not against giving them the “tomahawk” when he felt they deserved it. So I guess one could say that Jefferson fostered an environment in which Indians were seen as lesser-beings and when Indians no longer fit the stadial method it turned into a racial hatred. I mean you cannot blame Jefferson for people racially mistreating Indians. It is like the hypocrisy in thinking that all are endowed with natural rights but being nonchalant about slavery. Concerning the limitless consumers portion, here is a really good article on diplomatic history journal.

http://harvard.academia.edu/macabe/Papers/287277/_Anglo-American_Rivalry_and_the_Origins_of_U.S.China_Policy

“You imply that Jefferson had this mentality, which I sincerely doubt. Oh, and you used “then” instead of “than” again. If you understand English syntax “then” your sentence doesn’t make any sense. maybe, I should tell you what language to use. Be better than that. (“Than” is comparative. “Then” is temporal.)”

That Americanism should be spread to combat a perceived threat, yes, I do imply that. You admitted it earlier when you talked about how Jefferson was trying to combat the British. See I am making you feel included. For Roosevelt, it was more of a perceived lost of manhood for America. America needed another glorious scrap like the Civil War because it was becoming too “blubbery.” For Wilson, it was, like I said before, the perceived threat of backward civilization. America was progress. Monarchy was regression. Also, stop being so petty with the proof reading.

“Even after I told you not to bother comparing them due to circumstance…you did it anyway. I already knew that was the line of reasoning that you were using. You are abusing context. Jefferson did that because merchant ships were being hijacked not because banks wanted to control resources there.”

You were reminiscing about how Jefferson never sent the military over to China. I told you why he did not do that. He was more focused on the Barbary pirates and the British already had a military over in China. The American navy is a handful of ships at this point in time. I wonder if it can even be called a navy and I do not feel like I am exaggerating by saying that. I mean they had little skooners that patrolled the coast and that actually reminds me of John Randolph of Roanoke who worked against navy bills during the War of 1812 because he felt they would be used to extend American dominance beyond its borders. Old Randolph trying to be the wet-blanket of Congress. Ha!

10

“All of that said, you made some good arguments that have helped me conclude that the article (or at least my interpretation) of it was bunk. In particular, your argument about banking and mercantilism pretty much concluded that Jefferson was not and could not be a neocon… that is, Jefferson would have favored a mint and a central bank if he was an imperialist democratic peace theorist.”

Not necessarily. You can be an imperialist and be against central banking. Being one does not exclude the other. Take for example William Graham Sumner. Very much against the U.S. invasion of the Philippines but not against U.S. economic hegemony. Even imperialism can come in degrees. It is not so “black and white.” I mean of all the Anti-Imperialist League in the late 19th century, very few were consistenly against imperialism. Some were for the take over of Hawaii but against the Philippines and Cuba. Some were against it all. Some changed their mind etc. etc.

11

Two things: (1) I was referring to Jefferson’s changes in the University system in VA, not his actions in office. (I made this very clear) (2) “quite ‘an’ introduction” is correct.

You are still abusing context. “Americanism” is what you refered to as being the same concept almost an entire century apart. My point was that too much had happened in the interim for that to be the case. Jefferson’s “americanism” (spreading republican values) is differnt that TR’s “Americanism” as spreading corporate dominance (which I termed "profitism.)

I’m done talking to you if you aren’t willing to distinguish between basic concepts like “time.”

This isn’t true. I am pointing out the variations, I am ceding the overall point of expansionism, but pointing out their goals in that expansion weren’t at all similar.

Yeah, this makes sense.

Have you ever read Jefferson on the Natives? When you say ‘give them the tomahawk’ you are refering to contract law and the natives ignorance of it, right? Jefferson states several times in his letters that the Indians are just as smart as the Europeans and that contracts will be required to get things from them. Jackson was an outward racist. I don’t think Jefferson was. Jefferson didn’t even think Jackson was fit for President.

No, you cannot. He explicitly stated that we were to use contract law and fine print (Machiavellian tactics) in order to secure the land we wanted. This is precisely because he was not racist (as racist) towards them…what don’t you get about this?

Your subjects and action verbs are all over the place. I’ll read that paper in a little bit.

Certainly not in your English classes, amirite?

No, learn to write. If I wasn’t versed in English (say, a foreigner) I wouldn’t be able to make heads or tails of what you are saying. You will refer to one thing in one sentence , THEN, with no indication switch subjects and points to a totally different topic. It is like chaos verbiage. Language is uniform so that everyone can understand it.

You aren’t very sharp, are you? My initial mention was not “reminiscing about how Jefferson never sent the military over to China.” My point was that the motivations for Jefferson sending military forces to Tripoli was based on defense of trade. My reference to China was not framed in the time of Jefferson, but that of TR and Wilson; I refer to the U.S. military ventures in China on behalf of National City Bank. They are not even close to being the same in terms of motivation and hence my saying that comparing them is unproductive, but since that is all you can think about with those “dipshit blinders” you seem to have sewn on to your face, I predicted that you would go down that road. You did go down that road and still don’t get why I intiailly told you it was useless.

12

“Two thihngs: (1) I wa referring to Jefferson’s changes in the University system in VA, not his actions in office. (2) “quite 'an’introduction” is correct.”

Ah so you think Jefferson made an greater introduction of economic theory in his changes of the university system (could you explain what they were so I better understand you) than as the commander and chief, head of foreign diplomacy? Ah there I go again being flippant. I swear I need to stop but it’s like a disease.

"You are still abusing context. “Americanism” is what you refered to as being the same concept almost an entire century apart. My point was that too much had happened in the interim for that to be the case. Jefferson’s “americanism” (spreading republican values) is differnt that TR’s “Americanism” as spreading corporate dominance (which I termed “profitism.)”

Because it spans almost an entire century. It is the same notion, just different reasons for it to transpire. America is destined to be the city upon a hill. John Winthrop wrote that in the early 17th century. Reagan said that in the 1980s. Different reasons for being that city but it is still the same notion that America is bound for greatness. I’d like to see you cite Roosevelt in order to show he thought it was corporate dominance. I mean the man saw commerce as effeminate.

“This isn’t true. I am pointing out the variations, I am ceding the overall point of expansionism, but pointing out their goals in that expansion weren’t at all similar.”

I believe I have shown that they are. All you have done is say “they are out of context” in so many words.

“Have you ever read Jefferson on the Natives? When you say ‘give them the tomahawk’ you are refering to contract law and the natives ignorance of it, right? Jefferson states several times in his letters that the Indians are just as smart as the Europeans and that contracts will be required to get things from them. Jackson was an outward racist. I don’t think Jefferson was. Jefferson didn’t even think Jackson was fit for President.”

I have Jefferson’s writings sitting right next to me. I can give you the page numbers. When I said “tomahawk” I used the word that Jefferson used in regards to his policy toward hostile Indians. Jefferson wanted them bound to friendship…bound. They should be bribed into it. In this state they will be introduced to “civilized” culture and thus be turned into civilized people. This is the stadial theory of history. It is not racial per say. It is environmentalist. These “savages” did not grow up in a civilized culture were they were taught in civilized manners. If they were indoctrinated into a civilized culture they would become civilized.

“No, you cannot. He explicitly stated that we were to use contract law and fine print (Machiavellian tactics) in order to secure the land we wanted. This is precisely because he was not racist (as racist) towards them…what don’t you get about this?”

Actually you can. This is how biological racism develops. The stadial method failed to fit the ideal of colonialists. Indians were not becoming “civilized” because of their proximity to civilization. Therefore there is something inetly different between them and the Europeans. Something that cannot be “civilized” out by European culture hence biological racism. Inconvertible differences between cultures. Something one is “born” into.

“No, learn to write. If I wasn’t versed in English (say, a foreigner) I wouldn’t be able to make heads or tails of what you are saying. You will refer to one thing in one sentence , THEN, with no indication switch subjects and points to a totally different topic. It is like chaos verbiage. Language is uniform so that everyone can understand it”

Hold on, I will change my writing style to make you happy. Just give me a minute.

“You aren’t very sharp, are you? My initial mention was not “reminiscing about how Jefferson never sent the military over to China.” My point was that the motivations for Jefferson sending military forces to Tripoli was based on defense of trade. My reference to China was not framed in the time of Jefferson, but that of TR and Wilson; I refer to the U.S. military ventures in China on behalf of National City Bank. They are not even close to being the same in terms of motivation and hence my saying that comparing them is unproductive, but since that is all you can think about with those “dipshit blinders” you seem to have sewn on to your face, I predicted that you would go down that road. You did go down that road and still don’t get why I intiailly told you it was useless.”

I never compared Jefferson and National City Bank in relation to China…I never even talked about National City Bank. You seem to have been blinded by some violent outburst. Here I will explain my point again. Jefferson was trying to get to China. He did not need to send the American military into China because the British already had a sizeable force there. Roosevelt made more progress toward the China Market then Thomas Jefferson because Roosevelt helped to conquer various Pacific nations that would serve as coaling stations for boats to get to the Chinese coast. These nations were Philippines, Guam, Hawaii. Do you understand so far? Now why Roosevelt have an easier time then Jefferson doing this? Well because getting to the Chinese coast was more difficult in Jefferson’s time then Roosevelt. The American frontier at that time was considered the Ohio valley. By the time Roosevelt had come into office, California had already been admitted as a state, the Mexican-American war had extended American borders to the western coast. There was an greater American presence and more development. Jefferson did not have that presence. Thus it was more difficult for him.

Now your direct quote was:

“And what is wrong with trading with the Orient? I don’t recall Jefferson telling anyone to send the military over there to help the banks…”

Now my reply was:

“No, he was too busy waging war on the Barbary pirates and really the Chinese already had a military on their lands. They were the British.”

Translation:

No, Jefferson did not send any troops to China. He was fighting the Barbary pirates. The American Navy was small back then so a foreign fight would have consumed the time of those forces. Anyways, the British already had control of China so what would be the point of sending troops to a conquered nation?

13

Ah, so now qualifications come into it. Who wouldn’t treat “hostiles” with force?

So, why did Jefferson abolish the Indian re-education center at William & Mary? Hmm? Wouldn’t that seem like a good way to "indoctrinate them? Or was it just not big enough? He did that at the same time he introduced “poltical economy” in the vein of Turgot to W&M.

It is not your writing style you imbecile. It is your fucking hillbilly education in the “Anglish” department. How can you expect people to believe your historcial analyisis if you don’t get third grade English functions? Honestly?

No, but the whole point of this discussion was comparing the circumstances from Jefferson’s time to that of Wilson. That is why I brought it up. The CIRCUMSTANCES ARE TOO DIFFERENT TO SAY THAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS ARE THE SAME. Jefferson had banks and he hated them, Wilson and TR worked FOR THEM. Their motivations for expansion are not the same EVEN IF THEY BOTH USED THE WORD “AMERICAN” in their speeches. You think-headed cunt of person.

Can you restate this for a fourth time please? I’m just not getting it, bro.

You are a hillbilly (as evidenced by your Anglish skrillz) and you are purposely avoiding the temporal conflict of your reasoning. You cannot possibly say that Jefferson would have done anything like what TR did BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCE. You use their rhetoric to make your points. Like every asshole politician in history, they use the words of the Founders to further their own ambitions. Their masque of motivation is the “shining hill” you refer to. IT MEANS NOTHING IF CONTEXT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

Also, this quote of mine "“And what is wrong with trading with the Orient? I don’t recall Jefferson telling anyone to send the military over there to help the banks…”

the comparison was that Jefferson didn’t send the military anywhere in the world on behalf of banks…TR and Wilson BOTH DID. Your focus on Jefferson and China is totally unnecessary…I didn’t mean to imply that i was concerned with his policy towards them anyway.

Also, your obnoxious method of highlighting the text is bad on people’s eyes. When the focus of the eye is black and the immediate outline is bright (white, neon yellow, etc.) it dilates the eyes. This is why most TVs are black and why smart people have black keyboards. Please use the quote method. You are making it difficult for people’s eyes to adjust with that yellow highlight, you fucking moron.

14

:Ah, so now qualifications come into it. Who wouldn’t treat “hostiles” with force?"

Who kills the victim and thinks it is justice?

"So, why did Jefferson abolish the Indian re-education center at William & Mary? Hmm? Wouldn’t that seem like a good way to "indoctrinate them? Or was it just not big enough? He did that at the same time he introduced “poltical economy” in the vein of Turgot to W&M. "

Let me clear my proverbial throat. Here we are. In a letter to William Henry Harrison in 1803:

“The decrease of game rendering their subsistence by hunting insufficient, we wish to draw them to agriculture, to spinning and weaving. The latter branches they take up with great readiness, because they fall to the women, who gain by quitting the labors of the field for those which are exercised within doors. When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this dispoistion to exchange lands, which they have to spare and we want, we shall push our trading uses, and be glad to see the good influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observes when these debts go beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands. At our trading houses, too, we mean to sell so low as merely to repay us cost and charges, so as neither to lessen or enlarge our capital. This is what private traders cannot do, for they must gain; they will consequently retire from the competition, and we shall thus get clear of this pest without giving offence (sic) or umbrage to the Indians. In this way our setttlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi.”

In his second inaugural address:

The aboriginal inhabitants of these countries I have regarded with the commiseration their history inspires. Endowed with the faculties and the rights of men, breathing an ardent love of liberty and independence, and occupying a country which left them no desire but to be undisturbed, the stream of overflowing population from other regions directed itself on these shores; without power to divert or habits to contend against it, they have been overwhelmed by the current or driven before it; now reduced within limits too narrow for the hunter’s state, humanity enjoins us to teach them agriculture and the domestic arts; to encourage them to that industry which alone can enable them to maintain their place in existence and to prepare them in time for that state of society which to bodily comforts adds the improvement of the mind and morals. We have therefore liberally furnished them with the implements of husbandry and household use; we have placed among them instructors in the arts of first necessity, and they are covered with the aegis of the law against aggressors from among ourselves.

8

But the endeavors to enlighten them on the fate which awaits their present course of life, to induce them to exercise their reason, follow its dictates, and change their pursuits with the change of circumstances have powerful obstacles to encounter; they are combated by the habits of their bodies, prejudices of their minds, ignorance, pride, and the influence of interested and crafty individuals among them who feel themselves something in the present order of things and fear to become nothing in any other. These persons inculcate a sanctimonious reverence for the customs of their ancestors; that whatsoever they did must be done through all time; that reason is a false guide, and to advance under its counsel in their physical, moral, or political condition is perilous innovation; that their duty is to remain as their Creator made them, ignorance being safety and knowledge full of danger; in short, my friends, among them also is seen the action and counteraction of good sense and of bigotry; they too have their antiphilosophists who find an interest in keeping things in their present state, who dread reformation, and exert all their faculties to maintain the ascendancy of habit over the duty of improving our reason and obeying its mandates.

It was long so I just copied and pasted it.

"It is not your writing style you imbecile. It is your fucking hillbilly education in the “Anglish” department. How can you expect people to believe your historcial analyisis if you don’t get third grade English functions? Honestly?’

Any time a moderator wants to come in and police this comment, I’m certainly for it. It is my writing style. It is not formal when I am on the Mises forums. I just read your sentence, respond, then read your next sentence. That is just how I respond. So far you have been nothing but belligerent and yet I am labeled the ignorant one.

“No, but the whole point of this discussion was comparing the circumstances from Jefferson’s time to that of Wilson. That is why I brought it up. The CIRCUMSTANCES ARE TOO DIFFERENT TO SAY THAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS ARE THE SAME. Jefferson had banks and he hated them, Wilson and TR worked FOR THEM. Their motivations for expansion are not the same EVEN IF THEY BOTH USED THE WORD “AMERICAN” in their speeches. You think-headed cunt of person.”

I am not a “think-headed cunt of a person,” whatever you mean by that. My point can be easily reestablished. It had nothing to do with banks. You just keep on introducing new topics to the discussion that have nothing to do with it, like secession.

Here are my points again:

“Both believed that Americanism should be spread to counter-act a perceived threat.”

(In discussion Americanism) “At its heart it still holds the nationalistic notion that America is something of a bulwark against dark powers. America through some facet is meant to influence world events and establish its dominance for benevolent purposes”

“Both believed in a frontier-like thesis.”

“Jefferson and TR were after the same target. The target being the China market.”

“Can you restate this for a fourth time please? I’m just not getting it, bro.”

Do you think you will get it the fifth time?

“You are a hillbilly (as evidenced by your Anglish skrillz) and you are purposely avoiding the temporal conflict of your reasoning. You cannot possibly say that Jefferson would have done anything like what TR did BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCE. You use their rhetoric to make your points. Like every asshole politician in history, they use the words of the Founders to further their own ambitions. Their masque of motivation is the “shining hill” you refer to. IT MEANS NOTHING IF CONTEXT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.”

So, wait…should I not be using their words to make my points? I’m confused. Wait, do I use my word to make their points? No. That does not make sense. I think using their words to establish my point…well..it sounds smart…Can I get an uninterested third-party here to give us some kind of direction?

But seriously, there are trends in history. You just have to see them. It is not as if Roosevelt or Wilson just suddenly started talking about spreading Americanism aboard, right out of the blue. For John Winthrop, the city upon a hill was to be a place of importance in the sense that it would try to be a pure form of religious living. It was here that people would find salvation against the Papacy and the English Church, two institutions which had turned their backs on God. For Reagan it was here that people would find salvation against the spectre of Communism sweeping around the world, a philosophy that had turned its back on individualism and freedom. Do you see it now? The connection is the United States.

For the fifth time:

“At its heart it still holds the nationalistic notion that America is something of a bulwark against dark powers. America through some facet is meant to influence world events and establish its dominance for benevolent purposes.”

It is American exceptionalism and its been around since John Winthrop sat his Puritan ass on the east coast in 1630.

15

Further, you skeeze, you took Jefferson way out of context with your tomahawk comment. You see, I am not an idiot, like you, nor am I intellectually dishonest, like you.

He is lamenting (not endorsing) the fact that it will be necessary to do these things. And that it will be used as ammunition for those that like war and debt. You have lost so much face for this, kid.

Here Jefferson makes the point that I am trying to make to you…

And this was said while the person was alive. Not a century, but a mere lifetime…

Later in that same letter,

As we teach them farming, it will be mutually beneficial to trade with them for the good of BOTH. Ah, the words of a callous man out to murder the barbarians who aren’t civilized…right?

More from that letter,

Here he does have an attitude of “I know what’s best for them,” but I think, he has some fair points. Don’t forget he is also thinking of those in the U.S. that are racist and what they will do to the indians if they do not get what they want. So, I agree with Jefferson in the “pure morality” of it.

same letter,

OMG, the Indians might never have considered just becoming citizens!! Man, that is the “tomahawk” if I’ve ever heard it.

A different letter a few days later,

That bastard!

same letter,

This is kind of dickish, but here

he decides against just taking the land due to the “paramount sovereignty” of the U.S. He wants to pay the last chief so as to “make him easy for life.”

and further,

This is not ill-tempered at all. He wants them to be together, have money, be happy, and be safe (presumably from the racist expansionists who think that “paramount sovereignty” is a reason to deprive them of all the aforementioned ‘ammenities’ of being native to the land of colonizers.

same letter,

Here Jefferson contemplates “wooing” the indians from the protection that France has afforded them (implicitly it sounds).

Here he does sound like he knows that the indians won’t be pumped about what will happen to their (cultural) history in the future due to the expanse of the U.S. and or France. (He may even think that they would think that he thinks that they are pawns between the French and the U.S. which is partly true and partly not.)

His letter to John Adams on June 11, 1812 seemd like he had a genuine interest in the culture of the indians and was certainly not going to take on faith the accounts of some of the observers of the indians due to their preconceptions.

He even says that the Canadians will be the ones who “conquer” the indians and this will help us because they are the ones who threaten the indians.

If you need anymore help learning, I’ll be here.

16

WHAT!?!!?!?!

Jefferson states explicitly that the indians had committed “constant murders.” Who is the victim?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Jesus Christ you are dumb.

How are you about to tell me I am introducing concepts off topic with statments like this,

WHO CARES? You are almost two centuries into temporal comparison. Do you think Jefferson had any idea what the 1980’s would look like? Do you think Reagan’s motivations were anything like Jefferson’s?

Regarding your quotations, why don’t you provide some interpretation of them? I quoted the same letter you did…but didn’t get thhe same thing out of it. I explain my reasoning, you do not. The letter to Williiam Harrison is explaining the mutual benefit that the two cultures recieve in trading agricultural technique as well as “spinning and weaving” for lands to settle on…you are way of the mark if you think that is some kind of racist “let’s kill’em and take their shit” statement.

Yeah, because you keep referring to political speeches as if politicians don’t make shit up and use language that people like to hear. Every politician says that “america is here to save the day.” It doesn’t mean that that is the reason for their doing things…Personal letters are better suited for examination of their actual opinions because they weren’t meant for public consumption.

Oh yeah, secession is relevant if we are discussing the prospects for expansion of “americanism” being the prime relation of Jefferson to TR and/or Wilson. It doesn’t stand to reason that someone who supports secession from the U.S. system to at the same time be trying to force it down other people’s throats…If they can leave the so called “city on a hill” what makes it so grand as to be expanded? hm?? hmmm??

Jefferson, by your account, would be saying, “Take lessons from us (expand americansim), but don’t if you don’t like it (feel free to secede).” Wilson and TR were willing to go to war for American ideals (or so they said more likely it was British banking pressure that pushed us into WWI) and I highly doubt that if some states wanted to secede during their terms that they would have let them…

17

“He is lamenting (not endorsing) the fact that it will be necessary to do these things. And that it will be used as ammunition for those that like war and debt. You have lost so much face for this, kid.”

My comments:

“Jefferson was not as zealous as say Andrew Jackson in terms of Indian relations but he was not against giving them the “tomahawk” when he felt they deserved it.”

“Jefferson wanted them bound to friendship…bound. They should be bribed into it. In this state they will be introduced to “civilized” culture and thus be turned into civilized people. This is the stadial theory of history. It is not racial per say. It is environmentalist. These “savages” did not grow up in a civilized culture were they were taught in civilized manners. If they were indoctrinated into a civilized culture they would become civilized.”

And for my next comment:

In the letter to William Henry Harrison, the same letter you are quoting:

“As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, an that all our liberalities to them proceed from the motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be fool-hardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation.”

Wait…what did I say before?

“When I said “tomahawk” I used the word that Jefferson used in regards to his policy toward hostile Indians.”

Oh right! Wait…how did you miss that part of the letter. I mean you are quoting it so it is not like you did not have it. Wait…are you purposely leaving out portions of the letter to William Henry Harrison in an effort to make me look like they bad guy…oh you coy minx you!

“As we teach them farming, it will be mutually beneficial to trade with them for the good of BOTH. Ah, the words of a callous man out to murder the barbarians who aren’t civilized…right?”

The words of a man who believes in a stadial theory of history and labels agriculture as progress and hunter-gathering as backwardness. And this is not some “oh hey farming is more secure and feeds more” type of arguement. This is: You are inferior because you do not domesticate your animals. The hilarious part is that Indians had to supply early American with crops because the majority of early colonists were not farmers.

18

Here is another primary source that goes directly against your absurd and overgeneralized claim,

Stop trying to sound like you are some PhD synthesizer that has some grand unique vision of what draws American politicians together. You stretch absurdities to make your points and have ignored every contra argument to my favor in order to continue your propondering banalities…

19

hahahaha as if it is not? You refer to this as if it is not perfectly reasonable for them to think that…why don’t you explain why it is a bad thing to think that? Do you think that cannibals are lesser people than you? If so, then you might be a follower of the SToH…

I don’t even know to what you are referring anymore. I’m pretty sure I quoted sections that weren’t always in my favor…

So, what?

How many contra examples of Jeffesron did I pull up, four? And you are hung up on his sentiment of retaliation…AND you try to paint it as if it is ana gressive notion.

You’re a dumbass.

20

"WHAT!?!!?!?!

Jefferson states explicitly that the indians had committed “constant murders.” Who is the victim?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Jesus Christ you are dumb.

How are you about to tell me I am introducing concepts off topic with statments like this,"

I would label the tribes that had their lands taken from them as the victims. I mean they were not always on the right side but they were victims more then perpetrators.

“WHO CARES? You are almost two centuries into temporal comparison. Do you think Jefferson had any idea what the 1980’s would look like? Do you think Reagan’s motivations were anything like Jefferson’s?”

Jefferson have any ideas on 1980? No I do not think he did. I just want to be clear on something though. Do you think that the modern American empire is not the same American empire that was being developed in the late 19th century? If not then when did it evolve? What I mean to say is when is your arbitrary distinction of what is and is not relevant to present events in effect?

“Regarding your quotations, why don’t you provide some interpretation of them? I quoted the same letter you did…but didn’t get thhe same thing out of it. I explain my reasoning, you do not. The letter to Williiam Harrison is explaining the mutual benefit that the two cultures recieve in trading agricultural technique as well as “spinning and weaving” for lands to settle on…you are way of the mark if you think that is some kind of racist “let’s kill’em and take their shit” statement.”

“In this state they will be introduced to “civilized” culture and thus be turned into civilized people. This is the stadial theory of history. It is not racial per say. It is environmentalist. These “savages” did not grow up in a civilized culture where they were taught in civilized manners. If they were indoctrinated into a civilized culture they would become civilized”

“This is how biological racism develops. The stadial method failed to fit the ideal of colonialists. Indians were not becoming “civilized” because of their proximity to civilization. Therefore there is something innately different between them and the Europeans. Something that cannot be “civilized” out by European culture hence biological racism. Inconvertible differences between cultures. Something one is “born” into.”

I’m getting tired of this though. Before you were mad that I was using their words to make my point. Now you are mad because I don’t elaborate my points about their comments.

“Yeah, because you keep referring to political speeches as if politicians don’t make shit up and use language that people like to hear. Every politician says that “america is here to save the day.” It doesn’t mean that that is the reason for their doing things…Personal letters are better suited for examination of their actual opinions because they weren’t meant for public consumption.”

Well that is false. Why would Jefferson save these letters if not for his posterity. In fact George Washington burned a lot of his correspondence to help build the myths about him. Smart man.

“Oh yeah, secession is relevant if we are discussing the prospects for expansion of “americanism” being the prime relation of Jefferson to TR and/or Wilson. It doesn’t stand to reason that someone who supports secession from the U.S. system to at the same time be trying to force it down other people’s throats…If they can leave the so called “city on a hill” what makes it so grand as to be expanded? hm?? hmmm??”

People can have cognitive dissonance. What makes it so grand as to be expanded, simple, the points I went over. Because the perception of an Anglo-American race, or their philosophy on politics, hell some people thought it was cause God was talking to them.

Cognitive dissonance, just like you!

First I am a dumb hillbilly

then Im a PhD synthezier.

Cognitive dissonance!

I’m both an idiot and a machine of civilization’s highest degree obtainable!