The United States A work in Progress – then and now | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Diane Rufino had posted a couple of articles with a reference to a current book about Thomas Jefferson (which I have ordered). Here are the links to those articles: Government of the people  and   Judicial Activism   I am in agreement with the most of her positions on Jefferson regarding the formation of our country, but I note that he was just one of many in the cauldron that molded the metal of this country. We should be very careful of awarding sainthood to any of our founders for they were flawed (The Dark side of Jefferson) just as we all are. Many of the my comments below are nothing more than random thoughts on various issues that I have still to clarify in my mind. I usually use the written form to set out my thoughts and then try to debunk or reinforce my beliefs (biases) with some broad based research. The process often leads me to a different conclusion or at least a firmer basis for my bias. I do not deny that this effort is in and of itself subject to my biased point of view. The danger of course is applying revisionist history to the facts based on our current understanding of "Self Evident Truths" The portions in Blue below are direct quotes from various sources. My comments are in black. Feel free to correct my interpretation of history. (BT)

The United States A work in Progress - then and now

"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory." Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter to Charles Thomson, then secretary of the Continental Congress

     We must remember that there were deep divisions among the founding members of the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitutional Convention. The division was also between the populace with Loyalist and Revolutionist. Perhaps the only common agreement among them was their anger over the government imposing conditions on them that they did not agree with and had no voice in. The founding was only possible by the use of COMPROMISE.(BT)

   We must also be careful applying our retrospective Purity of Hindsight Filter to the actions of these various players in our founding. They were for the most part known to each other and their opinions were often at odds but they were attempting to find a common area which they could agree on that would serve as a self-governing platform for a country that they had no assurance would ever be brought into existence. We should use caution in trying to find perfection in any situation where imperfect people are involved. (BT)

   The genius of the system they devised depended on an interaction of three distinct branches of government. A legislature representing selected people, an executive branch representing the people as a whole and a judicial branch to hopefully keep the government within the borders of the founding documents. All branches were subject to the flaws of human nature adhering to the written word. They also provided the means to alter the government by regular elections and amendments when necessary to the alter or adjust the constitution. Perhaps their greatest achievement was that they vested the power in the people. Juries of peers would determine the guilt of the accused and Juries of voters would alter or chart course of the government. And an amendment process was proscribed to correct excesses by the Supreme court. (BT)

    Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on one's own point of view. The government thus formed consisted of men with distinct opinions and philosophies willing to compromise. This government is effectively a work in progress or as some have called it a Grand Experiment which has be ongoing for 241 years as of this writing. Humans have a unique ability to hold one thing to be scared and proper while at the same time doing just the opposite because they are committed to a greater goal. As much as we would hate to admit it, a practical analysis must be made to see if the END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS. At least Two examples the Gordian Knot from the 1770-1790s are:

• the slavery issue
• the limitation of the power of a central government vs states rights.

    The Original Sin of our founding rest squarely on the inability to come to an agreement on the issue of Slavery. In order to get the constitution ratified the founding brothers were largely silent on the issue. This was largely an acknowledgement that there was no compromise possible at the time that would assure the ratification of the document we now live under. The seeds were sown for the later war some 70+ years hence to settle the issue.

Franklin Deist (70) Adams (Puritan) (41) Jefferson Deist (33)
    It is a well-documented division between the Federalist and Jeffersonian Republican / Democratic group. What is not common knowledge is that the principal framers of the Declaration of Independence were not Christians by the current definition. Both Franklin and Jefferson were Diest, while John Adams was a Puritan (later Unitarian).Though all professed a deep faith in a creator, they would not be characterized today as Christian devotees.The Founder's Faith   

    It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson was not immune to holding two conflicting positions at the same time for the sake of his goals. He did have the passion of Youth on his side and was an excellent writer, thought not a good speech maker (He did not posses the gift of gab). One of my favorite history professors (Dr. Sellers, Georgia State University, 1969) may have had it correct when he said that Thomas Jefferson was chosen to write the Declaration of Independence because he was so full of Bull$hit (it was a joke to emphasis that the actual practice of independence did not meet the Soaring Idealistic Rhetoric of the document). It could be argued that Thomas Jefferson was more interested in separating from Britain and maintaining the independence of Virginia than forming a Union of States under a national government. Jefferson was aware that his personal holding of slaves did not conform to his elegant words in the Declaration, which he wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

    The national bank was the result of The Compromise of 1790. It was perhaps the first example of a quid pro quo in the newly formed government of the United States. A deal was made: The formation of the National Bank in return for the Capital being in a southern city In Virginia territory. My emphasis in red below. Below is Jefferson's own account of the dinner meeting likely written in 1792 with the benefit of history and his careful wording to keep himself aloof from the agreement. (BT)

"On June 20, 1790, when Congress was temporarily meeting in New York City, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson hosted a dinner. In attendance were Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Representative from Virginia James Madison."
" I immediately wrote to each to come and dine with me the next day, mentioning that we should be alone, that the object was to find some temperament for the present fever, and that I was persuaded that men of sound heads and honest views needed nothing more than explanation and mutual understanding to enable them to unite in some measures which might enable us to get along. They came. I opened the subject to them, acknowledged that my situation had not permitted me to understand it sufficiently but encouraged them to consider the thing together. They did so. It ended in Mr. Madison’s acquiescence in a proposition that the question should be again brought before the House by way of amendment from the Senate, that tho’ he would not vote for it, nor entirely withdraw his opposition, yet he should not be strenuous, but leave it to its fate.

It was observed, I forget by which of them, that as the pill would be a bitter one to the Southern states, something should be done to soothe them; that the removal of the seat of government to the Potomac was a just measure, and would probably be a popular one with them, and would be a proper one to follow the assumption."    Jefferson-memorandum-on-the-compromise-of-1790

    Even though Jefferson was against the formation of a National Bank, he did realize that the issue was not as clear-cut as he had argued. In his memorandum to President Washington he included a final paragraph which indicate that he was at least prepared to accept the premise if Washington so decided. If I read between the lines, it would indicate to me that Jefferson was able to acknowledge that Washington was the final arbiter. With that in mind, he may have disabused his own argument. Accepting that the President could veto the bill placed before him and duly passed by congress was an tacit admission that congress could override the veto per the prescribed vote and the bill become law. Here is his final paragraph. (BT)

"It must be added however, that unless the President’s mind on a view of every thing which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the constitution, if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favour of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President" Founders Archives.gov

The Louisiana Purchase: Jefferson's constitutional gamble - National Constitution Center

Jefferson was not above exceeding his authority for his own purposes. (BT) See quote below:

"Jefferson, himself was not above interpretation of the Constitution for his own means. His goal of expanding the country with the Louisana Purchase was a dubious interpretation of the constitution authority to purchase land. He attempted to include it as authorized by the Treaty clause, but many disagreed on the subject including some of the Federalist who were in favor of a strong central government.

Jefferson took a strict, literal view of constitutional powers, meaning that specific powers reserved for the President and Executive Branch needed to be spelled out in the Constitution. The ability to buy property from foreign governments was not among these powers listed in Article IV of the Constitution – a fact that his political opponents, the Federalists, were eager to point out to the President.

Instead, Jefferson considered a constitutional amendment as the only way to conclude the deal with France. “The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution gives it,” he wrote to John Dickinson in 1803. “It has not given it power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this.”

However, Jefferson had no intention of losing the deal with France. “In the meantime we must ratify and pay our money, as we have treated, for a thing beyond the Constitution, and rely on the nation to sanction an act done for its great good, without its previous authority,” he told Dickinson." Constitution Center.org

   When we look back on these mid_wives of our country's birth, it is worth remembering that they did not have the assurance of history that the experiment of self-government would ever come to fruition. They had no way of knowing that the experiment would be a success. One last quotation on how fragile our system was and still is:

In the long run, the evolution of an independent American nation, gradually developing its political and economic strength over the nineteenth century within the protective constraints of the British Empire, was probably inevitable. This was Paine's point. But that was not the way history happened. The creation of a separate American nation occurred suddenly rather than gradually, in revolutionary rather than evolutionary fashion, the decisive events that shaped the political ideas and institutions of the emerging state all taking place with dynamic intensity during the last quarter of the eighteenth century. No one present at the start knew how it would turn out in the end. What in retrospect has the look of a foreordained unfolding of God's will was in reality an improvisational affair in which sheer chance, pure luck both good and bad-and specific decisions made in the crucible of specific military and political crises determined the outcome. At the dawn of a new century, indeed a new millennium, the United States is now the oldest enduring republic in world history, with a set of political institutions and traditions that have stood the test of time. The basic framework for all these institutions and traditions was built in a sudden spasm of enforced inspiration and makeshift construction during the final decades of the eighteenth century. (PAGE 5) Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation