I wonder how many of the misguided wingnuts who intimidate and strive to thuggishly silence their fellow citizens have read the whole passage? They may be comforted by what seems to be stirring phrase, when torn out of context, but they shouldn’t. They misunderstand its meaning, and misunderstand their fate if they give in to violence.
Jefferson told the rest of the citizenry what to do in the face of any such violent watering. Jefferson’s advice to the peaceful is much more arduous than striking out in ignorant violence, but we cannot shrink from his instructions. It is our duty as patriotic citizens to remember the words that surround that disturbing phrase, and act on them if necessary.
Here is Jefferson’s supposedly stirring and inspiring quote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Now read what Jefferson wrote immediately before it. Jefferson was in Paris, reading a draft of the proposed US Constitution. He objected to some aspects of the federal government, particularly the executive, that he felt were too strong. He begins by wondering what danger of anarchy existed in the US to justify such a seemingly strong central government (and I am sure he feared a president who could inhabit office any length of time would raise a standing army, one of his pet horrors). Then he reflects on the recent Shay’s Rebellion, that had rattled the American aristocracy (including Madison, who was close to panic for awhile):
Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives.
Already there is reason for pause: Jefferson views the conduct of the rebellion ‘honorable’ -given the dishonest and thuggish intimidation by some the shouters, one hopes the honor increases a bit before anything happens. Jefferson did go on to discuss their motive, and his thoughts should give much more pause to those who threaten violence:
They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.
Jefferson goes on to placidly discuss civil violence in a bland and serene way, that I find disturbing:
God forbid we should ever be 20 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. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion?
(my emphasis)
He starts the next phrase with a sentence that I think is true; though as for the second, I myself hope any warnings would not include:violence.
And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
Now Jefferson considers how the rest of society should confront those who ‘take arms’ in order to ‘refresh the tree of liberty’
The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?
Jefferson was rather too delicate here, and omitted some steps in this process. But I think it is clear that those who resort to violence are to be confronted, informed, and corrected, but treated with respect and understanding.
Jefferson was no anarchist. In his world view, in a democracy, the majority must rule. But it had to be an enlightened and informed community that respected the expression of EVERY opinion (even, gasp, outright atheism), and participated constructively in public debate.
Jefferson did NOT say that freedom, or liberty, could be preserved by violence whenever there was a serious disagreement. Ignorant and foolish people may resort to threats of violence, or violence itself. The rest of us must counter it in a constructive way, NOT to give in or be intimidated. We will be vilified and ridiculed, but we have Jefferson’s marching orders and we cannot shirk our duty.
Elsewhere in the letter, Jefferson says he would pray that the objectionable parts of the constitution would be changed. They weren’t. When Jefferson returned to the US, he did not pack heat at meetings, and he did not shout people down, he did not threaten violence. Rather, he worked through the democratic process for the changes he believed in.
The powerful forces that are lying to these misguided people and trying to excuse, justify, or use, uninformed and violent discontent, are betraying Jefferson’s fundamental vision of a democratic society. And we need to raise our voices in condemnation. People who knowingly lead uninformed and frightened people astray need to be countered too, and much more strongly than the followers whom they exploit.
And, those informed and supposedly powerful people who hold positions of leadership who are cowardly, and counsel passive accommodation to threats of violence, and violence itself, must also be strongly opposed and condemned. For they are not following the vision of Jefferson either.
Neither of them would be worthy leaders in Jefferson’s eyes. We must use all of our power, through the democratic process, to remove these miserable and abject failures from positions of leadership and dangerously misused power.
From Jefferson’s letter to William S. Smith from Paris, Nov. 13, 1787



47 Comments







thanks for that synopsis .. Jefferson also said: liberty can be damaged by it’s abuse as much as by abuse of power .. [close] ..
great job
Thanks for this really great post. Jefferson (my personal hero) felt that the people should be in charge. We have certainly allowed that to be turned upside down. We must make a start at changing and return to the ordinary citizens their rights granted under the Constitution.
One point of contention: the Constitution doesn’t give us rights, but rather makes the point that rights are inherent to humanity. The Bill of Rights attempts to enumerate a few of the more important ones, with the understanding that it’s not all-inclusive of every right imaginable.
The reason this is important to note is because when some idiot starts yelling about there being no right to privacy defined in the Constitution, you can slap them with the actual wording. In other words, privacy is a right shared by all individuals even if it’s not enumerated, by virtue of being an inherent right.
I suspect this well reasoned piece will not fit neatly onto a Tee Shirt or bumper sticker. The ‘teabaggers’ will never see it any other way.
That’s the thing about lies: They can be easily made to fit onto bumperstickers.
Well a commenter on another blog has a really good point in response to the emergence of Mrs. Katy Abram and her pronouncements about the Constitution.
Here is the preamble
Perhaps that can be our bumper sticker…but for the fact that St. Ronnie made “welfare” a four letter word.
Great Point what part of Promote the General Welfare does the GOP not understand? Its funny how the GOPer Strict Constitutional Constructionists never seem to consider that clause.
As they rationalize with the Constitution their own greedy desires and cloak them with law.
I do appreciate the “spirit of resistance” is the key.
really great post. thank you.
We live in “Idiot America” What more can we expect? SciFi writers explored this concept over 40 years ago. I am somewhat surprised that what several wrote then is coming true now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indbur_III
My bold “obsessed by order and detail,” Bush insisted on wearing a suit and proper business attire he was more concerned about the form rather than the substance of what was actually going on.
Bush and Indbur lll both neglected to manage their wars.
Both got the job through who their dad was and while Indbur ” lacked the ability to see the bigger picture.”
Bush had a similar flaw a tendency to be wrong about everything.
Nice Diary! I agree twain we need to give the People back their rights but we Must also strip Corporations of their “Person hood” rights. They have no inherent rights as a person and we must have that added to the constitution. Corporations were the very thing that many of our founders saw as the tools aristocracy of Europe and vehemently opposed such entities!
You are 100% accurate, but I think that civil liberties will not be restored as intended by the founding fathers until corporate influence has been eliminated. Not checked or reduced, but taken out of the equation entirely.
A person has morals, a sense of right and wrong, and compassion.
Corporations exist to make money and will exploit anything and everything in pursuit of that goal. They are the linchpin upon which the success or failure of the American experiment hangs.
In the U.S. the people fear the government, in France, the government fears the people, which is as it ought to be. Is it not “government of the people, by the people and for the people” ?
The provisions for an overthrow of an unrepresentative government are enshrined in our constitution for a reason. I agree, educate and inform the misinformed, but when it is the elected representatives misleading and inciting, it is growing nearer to the time to water that tree. Personally I think you’d only have to (not my first choice of words but don’t want to talk to the fbi today ) “tar and feather” about ten of them critters to get the others to realize what their function is supposed to be and act accordingly. ;)
High Five Nahant.
High Five back at ya!
Until all Corporate interests are removed from influencing OUR Government we are in plain language FUCKED! They have all the money and time to do what ever they want. A place to help get them out of our government does exist at http://www.youstreet.org where you can at least some difference albeit a small difference but with greater numbers IT can be done!
We must get Corporations out of the equation of influencing our elected officials! Just think if they had to raise all their money from small individual donors with caps on how much they could donate!!
Democracy of the People by the People would reign supreme! And we would get What we wanted! Better and cheaper, cost effective Health Care for all Citizens!
There is an article at Huffpro detailing just how Corporations are oppressing the rest of us with their pornographic income disparities for the very few!
Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY
Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. The paper, which covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in American incomes. On his blog, Nobel prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the numbers “truly amazing.”
I think the tea baggers miss the point we are oppressed by the insurance companies that deny our claims on a whim. That charge us more for healthcare than anywhere else in the world. The drug companies make Americans pay more for drugs than they make the rest of the world pays.
National Healthcare would free us from this oppressive Tribute!
We pay high taxes for foreign wars something the Founders would have objected too because we are not fighting Ossama the guy who attacked us! So besides oil in Iraq and a gas pipeline through Afghanistan what is the point of our fighting except to aid the gas and oil companies?
The Tea Baggers are the uneducated ill informed Mob the founding Fathers did not want to have the vote.
They are stirred up by a corporate owned right wing media to act against their own best interests.
The 20%ers are a minority seeking to keep the yoke of Corporate Tyranny on all our necks.
I think the tea baggers miss the point we are oppressed by the insurance companies that deny our claims on a whim.
I wish the pundits would emphasize this much much more.
That charge us more for healthcare than anywhere else in the world. The drug companies make Americans pay more for drugs than they make the rest of the world pays.
National Healthcare would free us from this oppressive Tribute!
BargainCountertenor pointed out to me that many vaccines are French. So we are paying for transport, markup, etc etc. Imagine! The socialist French with their socialist health care provide our Freedom vaccines. Will the side effects be socialism? Will my kids become bilingual? /s I wish we could import their system.
We pay high taxes for foreign wars something the Founders would have objected too because we are not fighting Ossama the guy who attacked us! So besides oil in Iraq and a gas pipeline through Afghanistan what is the point of our fighting except to aid the gas and oil companies?
I wish these “patriots” would figure out how egregiously we citizens are TAXED by corporations. Instead of a US Treasury for the common good, our money goes directly into the pockets of greedy corporate bigwigs. we have more in common with the fight than they realize. They are properly motivated with the wrong agenda.
The Tea Baggers are the uneducated ill informed Mob the founding Fathers did not want to have the vote.
They are stirred up by a corporate owned right wing media to act against their own best interests.
The 20%ers are a minority seeking to keep the yoke of Corporate Tyranny on all our necks.
Yeah! And do they not remember that most of them attend government schools. I pay for that for their common good. I wish they would do their homework. Public schools were established precisely because the citizenry need to be educated and informed in order to vote effectively.
Bah!!!
Might I suggest a new history text book for public school kids?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..ted_States
That and Michael Moore films be shown on film days in the high schools.
This needs to go VIRAL! Incredible research! Thank you so much!
In context, Jefferson is writing from Paris two years before the French Revolution erupts. In what you have quoted here, I can sense the mood that must have been in Paris then. And the discussions about liberty and authority that must have been going on.
The French had a famine as a spark for the revolution a weak system needs a push. If France had promoted the general welfare by storing grain in good years or having the cash in reserve to buy grain none of this would have happened.
But they wasted their cash for decades on war instead. Free Speech is great and when the people are fed, happy and have a good living the government need not fear what people will say.
The more unhappy the people the more Authority the Government needs to keep control.
Yes, but the equivalent of liberal bloggers in the two years before were all about intellectual discussions of liberty and tyranny and other fallout from the American Revolution. Which was why Jefferson was sent as ambassador.
So, how many readers and commenters here have already spotlighted this excellent post from wesgpc to the Sunday morning gasbag hosts? The Broders’n’Riches? The news readers? How many already have used this Jeffersonian theme for your own LTEs? Or your blogs?
Hmmmm?
Get crack-a-lackin’!
T-shirt version:
Why do you believe this?
Where do your facts come from?
Can we at least come to agreement on the facts?
Do the facts support your beliefs?
If the facts won’t change your mind, what could?
How can we have a civil discussion if you won’t accept the facts?
They confuse greedy desire with fact and give their desires the authority of facts. However they defend their desires like desires the heart does want what it wants and it does not like to share.
Without Empathy for others I don’t think we can convince them unless we teach them empathy, give them no choice, or like FDR did show them that with Social Security, no war and high taxes on the rich we could have another post WW2 prosperity.
We need a win on Healthcare and the economy real wins not compromises once they experience the benefit they are ours!
But not until then.
I believe that in this day we can use peaceful means to bring down the Republican party using boycotts of their major campaign contributors and making demands of the CEOs that fund conservatives and demanding the legislation from them.
Such boycotts appear here
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/…..cpartyusa/
Start with the “belief tanks” that provide bogus research to rationalize their preconceived far right wing poltical ideology.
An excellent post that shows the dangers of only reading Bartlett’s when you look for inspiration.
One caveat, however: Jefferson does not repudiate violence as ultimate arbiter of liberty. How could he? He was a revolutionary who had just helped to throw off the yoke of a centuries-old “legitimate” government by violent means.
As I read the letter, Jefferson’s target is not violence per se, but anarchic violence. Monarchists and other conservatives demanded strong central authority as a counter to anarchy. They feared that once the taste for violent resistance to authority got established, it would take hold and that democracy would devolve inexorably into riot and ruin.
Jefferson refutes this by conceding that most violent outbreaks are the result of ignorance and need to be countered. But most can be countered by education, debate, and the other normal mechanisms of democratic society. Some have to be suppressed by lawful force. But the majority knows this and can act on it, without any need for an authoritarian state. Democracy leads to consensus and greater social cohesion, not to disintegration.
Underlying Jefferson’s remarks is the knowledge, however, that some violent outbreaks are necessary and unavoidable. Democratic disagreements can be settled by debate. Tyranny has to be overthrown, forced not reasoned with. So, ultimately, every citizen does have a right to try to shed the blood of tyrants. But his fellow citizens also have the right to oppose him. When he is in the minority, his actions are a crime or a rebellion, like Shays. But when he is in the majority, his acts are a Revolution.
Jefferson’s position is, I think, rooted in the 18th-century notion of the social contract and in the far older idea that civilization exists to contain and limit humanity’s violent nature. All parties to the contract have the ultimate ability to pursue their interests by any and all means possible, including violence, as wild animals do. But, as civilized people, the parties agree not to use this ultimate weapon in the hopes that restraint will promote the interests of all and, as the Constituion says, “insure domestic Tranquility”. When one party (such as a King) violates such agreements and uses or threatens force against the others, this contract is broken and all are free to exercise their natural rights once again. Under this view, it is the opposite of democracy–lawless, unilateral exercise of power–that creates anarchy.
This is a truth we would do well to remember. We should not discount it simply because pseudo-militias and teabaggers don’t understand it or simply because we are grown-up enough and civilized enough to know that violent revolutions are risky and destructive at best. Our current politicians, especially in the so-called Democratic establishment, have forgotten that they are parties to a contract that has a very significant non-performance clause. They need to be reminded what the consequences of non-performance would be–for all of us.
We have had a series of elections that have repudiated the course that politicians have set for this country for 30-odd years. The people have believed in the change they were promised. Yet the newly elected politicians stay the course. People’s savings are still being stolen. Their livelihoods are still being taken away. Their children are still being killed endless and pointless wars.
At some point, people will invoke that non-performance clause and we will face revolution in one form or another.
People pooh-pooh the claim and say it can’t happen here. But my father remembers when it almost did. It was averted only by a President–FDR–who saw what was what at the very last minute and finally upheld the political class’ side of the social bargain. Politicians always think that they can act with impunity–until they suddenly can’t.
I have no romantic illusions about the likely consequences of revolutionary violence. Clearly, it is less likely to produce good than bad. But I also have no illusions about the specialness of the American people and the special civility–or passivity–that is apparently supposed to keep them loyal to institutions that are no longer loyal to them.
Great comment.
You’ve about said it all, however I would note that I see a difference between the ignorance that Jefferson observed and that I would call ‘natural’ or possibly ‘aboriginal’ and the ignorance we face today, which I would say has been agressively nurtured by the right in it’s desperate attempt to regain control of our government.
thanks for that comment.
As for Jefferson on financial corporations, those will be barnburners (prehaps even Jefferson lost his head at times in outrage and frustration). I will look for them.
Jefferson was a deist, which was the closest you could get to atheism in America in his time. And only the elite would hold such views. It was considered not wise to disabuse the ordinary run of people of the notion that there was a god or supreme being. Jefferson was also a materialist in the sense expressed by Epicurus and his intellectual heirs, another hallmark of his implicit atheism. Jefferson was the strongest proponent of the separation of church and state. It’s not insignificant, as it’s treated here, the importance of atheism in Jefferson’s thinking. This should be a first principle in interpreting his written thoughts.
Interestingly, John Adams, regarding the revolution, observed that the revolution was complete before any violence had ever taken place. It underscored the fact that the space between your ears is one of the most important battlefields.
The only thing between the ears of far too many U.S. citizens is just that, space.
Maximus7 has the right idea. Companies do listen to such things. You can get the phone #’s of Corporate head offices and get a message in, I’ve been doing it for decades.
One wouldn’t want to advocate illegal behavior here is the sacred confines of FDL-space, but what if, say, GE knew in advance that if the Roberts Court goes out of its way to allow corporations to freely finance federal politics, that every GE light bulb in every retailer in America might be damaged by angry citizens? Sure, you’d be punishing the retailers somewhat for GE’s sins, yet the retailers have sins of their own and GE would get the message, especially if consumers suddenly showed more spine in buying other brands of light bulbs, avoiding GE’s TV network, calling up advertisers on GE’s TV network and saying how that made the consumer less likely to buy, and so on and so on, generally pressing your way up the “sales chain” of American business so that even GE’s industrial manufacturing business might conceivably be affected because consumers would be pressing the consumer companies not to buy GE’s equipment.
If two million people were actively making these kinds of messages NOW, before the Roberts Court tries to re-write the rules, isn’t it possible that GE and its ilk would get the message to Chief Justice Roberts?
On a slightly off-topic tangent, let’s relate this determination to change the rules by our own citizen efforts to educate our fellow citizens to the political sphere and what is bugging me this morning.
In the health care wars, we are now getting the line, “Oh, if we can’t pass a bill this session we may lose the opportunity to reform health care for a generation.”
THIS CAN ONLY BE SO, if we accept that all politicians are always cowardly liars subject to the whims of lobbyists, and if we accept that the mass media are always pro-Republican masters of distraction.
We must be demanding of Obama and our Congress-critters, “You pass a GOOD bill, we don’t want a crap bill, and if you can’t pass it this year, you need to keep trying to pass an even better bill every year from now own whether it’s an election year or whatever, or we will vote against you and find and fund alternative candidates who can follow our wishes and not be distracted by lobbyists and astro-turf PR campaigns.”
80% or so of our current Democratic politicians at all levels of government, are, I believe, un-salvage-able products of the wrong lessons of modern government & public-relations: be slick, make deals, suck up to big business while giving citizens glossy words you don’t intend to fulfill. It’s going to be very tough to get these people out of public life, they’ll say they are electable and reform candidates are not, if you don’t vote for the lobbyist-infected timeserver Democrat (who acts like a Republican at all crucial moments), they’ll say, you’ll get an actual Republican.
And it’s a tough problem, yet we’ve got to get to where we can face it in an organized fashion, and still keep focused on the goal of GETTING THE CORPORATE DEMOCRATS OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE -or getting enough of them out that the rest are scared into acting a little more like real Democrats.
Jefferson airs his sentiments in a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, expressing justification for the series of protests led by Daniel Shay and a group of 1,200 farmers.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/re…..etter.html
How do you think Thomas Jefferson would feel about your President Obama’s assertion of the power of ‘preventive detention’?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..detention/
awaiting a post on that subject, or is your invocation of Jefferson highly selective?
This post was about people who attempt to shout down and intimidate opponents, and threaten violence in order to stop public discussion and determine public policy through force.
If you want to organize a protest or a noisey and rowdy public education campaign about Obama’s continuation of Bush security policies, that is another matter, and fine by me. If you want some electoral rebellion against incumbants who go along with it, that is fine by me.
I hope you are not suggesting the first thing to do is to wear a liberty tree t-shirt and threaten to shoot up the place if we don’t get our way, for that is what this post was about.
I hate to burst the bubble here, but that “pacify” comment? I think Jefferson really was encouraging us to put the rebellion down. Violently.
…Now I’m MORE freaked out about the passage, and Jefferson in general. Yes, he informs us, set them right- but “pacify”? It seems clear, at least to me, that he’s informing people that such a rebellion should be put down violently.
…I think you missed the mark there, mon ami, because I’m almost certain that Jefferson is suggesting violence against the rebellion.
Ah, well. To hell with him, we do this our own way.
The word ‘pacify’ is ambiguous, isn’t it? I think you are correct. Society cannot stand aside and allow people who resort to threat, intimidation and violence get their way, based on those unacceptable actions. So you are correct. But I think that Jefferson is also saying that much more has to be done: every attempt has to be made to reach out to people who are discontented, persuade tham to at least try to understand the issues better, and bring them into informed, respectful and reasoned discussion.
I think that robspierre’s comments above put some of these issues in a broader context.
I think some in the GOP leadership are inciting, and many in the Democrats are passively using the threats and intimidation as an excuse to acquiesce. Both GOP and Democrats seem to have forgetten that in many ways they are both guilty of non-performance of their duties as guardians of a social contract that includes ordinary people of ordinary means, from all parts of the political spectrum.
But, intimidation and threats of violence cannot be allowed to determine vital issues such as natioanl finance and health care.
I like your reasoning. It sounds like something we should do- try to educate. We are correct, after all- it’s the nice bonus you get for being on the Left. :)
Besides, on a more humorous note, if we don’t educate these people, we’ll have to deal with their stupidity for years to come, and who wants that? :)
Here’s a tasty quote anent my previous utterance here:
That is the key thing behind the topic here, viz., that people can be trusted to guide themselves and do not require the imposition of a moral authority represented, particularly, by the most immoral authority in the history of mankind, viz., the established orthodoxy of monotheistic religions.
in a way i’m sympathetic to the shay-ites they had been impressed as continental army troops in the revolutionary war ..and were not paid ..and were sent home unpaid ..then levied for taxes incurred during their absence..
at the very least those levies should have been held in abeyance until the veterans had been paid their back pay .. or as a gesture of gratitude for their service .. any taxes incurred during their absence should have been forgiven..
at least ..in modern times we do have the soldiers and sailors relief act ..
Veterans and those still in uniform posed the biggest threats to both the Confederation (which lacked the power to tax at the Federal level to pay them) and the early United States. There were more than a dozen rebellions and mutinies in the period between the defeat of Cornwallis to the election of Jefferson to the Presidency. Some of the officers involved threatened to turn over their forts or armories to the British. In other cases (”The Philadelphia Mutiny of i884(?)” which resulted in the Confederation Congress fleeing that city for six temporary sites) many of those involved were found to never have participated in the War.
Eventually the debts were paid (until then people lost land and went bankrupt) and debts were forgiven, but people were not willing to pay Federal taxes. The Jeffersonians contrarily enunciated support for the soldiers, but at the same time opposed revenue increasing measures to deal with it.
Very sweet sentiment & totally wrong. In an age when life was much cheaper, Jefferson favored periodic armed rebellion as an avenue to “progress.” He admits that the rebels are dumb as dirt (& nothing has changed under the sun), but he thought it would be just fine if populist thugs & his own government’s mercenaries went out on a field & shot at each other for awhile, the thugs putting their lives on the line for whatever uninformed cause they might espouse.
Now that minorities, women & poor people have the franchise, populists need not turn to firearms to make their political points. Unfortunately, the tradition which Jefferson advocated, exhibited also in the odious second amendment, remains a favorite of throwbacks, especially those from the South. Jefferson had a different idea of civilization than I do, & it was one careless of other people’s lives.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
Can’t remember if it was Beck’s show today or Rush’s, but one of them took a call where the person said THEIR SIDE is the majority. LOL Delusional to the end the conservatives are!
WTF. Jefferson is saying that it’s good for teh peasantry to rise from time to time so that you know that they think you’re on the wrong course, but when they do you should strike them down and lecture them on why you were right to do what you did. After all, they’re fucking peasants, what do they know? And this is a model we should all follow now?
This is the problem with the American “left”. It’s chockful of what are basically centrists who wish everything could be resolved with a hug, while the people you are hugging knife you in the back given the opportunity.
You assume whoever the elected authority is represents the interests of the few. That is the way it is now, but it does not need to be that way.
Jefferson clearly had no issue with subduing insurrections if they threatened actual violence. When he was governor of Virgiinia during the Confederation period he went beyond the established Constitutional boundaries to establish a “volunteer cavalry” to round up ringleaders of an armed group threatening insurrection, suggesting that this mounted militia capture the “traitors” at night at their homes when they were more easily disarmed.
Jefferson And Executive Power
Seems to me that Jefferson had three rules…talk and try to convey reasonable resolution, if that fails “pacify” by disarming and arresting those involved (which could lead to bloodshed if they resisted), and finally to pardon if the threat was alleviated and some show of contrition was made.
But Jefferson made no statements supporting the participants in Gabriel’s Rebellion, a slave uprising that occurred in Virginia one year before he was elected President. Most of the slaves involved were influenced by the “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” taken up by Toussaint L’Ouventure who borrowed the concepts from
the French and American Revolutions. Of course, the leaders and main participants of Gabriel’s Revolt were led to the gallows, and the rest dispersed to other states,
It’s clear that “pacify and pardon” had its political limits.
Blogging . . . the rights offered by our fore-fathers could never image the result.
Here’s the deal: If we don’t understand that one position is not right or wrong and stop trying to position, no place of conscience will exist. We can agree to disagree, but we need to be as one. If we leave it up to a few to manage the masses, few will end up ruling. What will we do, end up with Henry and wait for Elizabeth to save us. I really thought we were beyond this point.