You say you want a revolution...?

Byron In Exile

Frederick Fucking Chopin
Joined
May 3, 2002
Posts
66,591
Well, you know... we all want to change the world.


From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, Philadelphia, January 3, 1793


DEAR SIR,-- My last private letter to you was of Oct. 16. since which I have received your No. 103, 107, 108, 109, 11O, 112, 113 & 114 and yesterday your private one of Sep. 15, came to hand. The tone of your letters had for some time given me pain, on account of the extreme warmth with which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France. I considered that sect as the same with the Republican patriots, & the Feuillants as the Monarchical patriots, well known in the early part of the revolution, & but little distant in their views, both having in object the establishment of a free constitution, & differing only on the question whether their chief Executive should be hereditary or not. The Jacobins (as since called) yielded to the Feuillants & tried the experiment of retaining their hereditary Executive. The experiment failed completely, and would have brought on the reestablishment of despotism had it been pursued. The Jacobins saw this, and that the expunging that officer was of absolute necessity. And the Nation was with them in opinion, for however they might have been formerly for the constitution framed by the first assembly, they were come over from their hope in it, and were now generally Jacobins. In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent. These I deplore as much as any body, & shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree. A few of their cordial friends met at their hands the fate of enemies. But time and truth will rescue & embalm their memories, while their posterity will be enjoying that very liberty for which they would never have hesitated to offer up their lives. The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam & an Eve left in every country, & left free, it would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are really those of 99. in an hundred of our citizens. The universal feasts, and rejoicings which have lately been had on account of the successes of the French showed the genuine effusions of their hearts. You have been wounded by the sufferings of your friends, and have by this circumstance been hurried into a temper of mind which would be extremely disrelished if known to your countrymen. The reserve of the President of the United States had never permitted me to discover the light in which he viewed it, and as I was more anxious that you should satisfy him than me, I had still avoided explanations with you on the subject. But your 113. induced him to break silence and to notice the extreme acrimony of your expressions. He added that he had been informed the sentiments you expressed in your conversations were equally offensive to our allies, & that you should consider yourself as the representative of your country and that what you say might be imputed to your constituents. He desired me therefore to write to you on this subject. He added that he considered France as the sheet anchor of this country and its friendship as a first object. There are in the U.S. some characters of opposite principles; some of them are high in office, others possessing great wealth, and all of them hostile to France and fondly looking to England as the staff of their hope. These I named to you on a former occasion. Their prospects have certainly not brightened. Excepting them, this country is entirely republican, friends to the constitution, anxious to preserve it and to have it administered according to it's own republican principles. The little party above mentioned have espoused it only as a stepping stone to monarchy, and have endeavored to approximate it to that in it's administration in order to render it's final transition more easy. The successes of republicanism in France have given the coup de grace to their prospects, and I hope to their projects. -- I have developed to you faithfully the sentiments of your country, that you may govern yourself accordingly. I know your republicanism to be pure, and that it is no decay of that which has embittered you against it's votaries in France, but too great a sensibility at the partial evil which it's object has been accomplished there. I have written to you in the stile to which I have been always accustomed with you, and which perhaps it is time I should lay aside. But while old men are sensible enough of their own advance in years, they do not sufficiently recollect it in those whom they have seen young. In writing too the last private letter which will probably be written under present circumstances in contemplating that your correspondence will shortly be turned over to I know not whom, but certainly to some one not in the habit of considering your interests with the same fostering anxieties I do, I have presented things without reserve, satisfied you will ascribe what I have said to it's true motive, use it for your own best interest, and in that fulfil completely what I had in view.

With respect to the subject of your letter of Sep. 15. you will be sensible that many considerations would prevent my undertaking the reformation of a system with which I am so soon to take leave. It is but common decency to leave to my successor the moulding of his own business. -- Not knowing how otherwise to convey this letter to you with certainty, I shall appeal to the friendship and honour of the Spanish commissioners here, to give it the protection of their cover, as a letter of private nature altogether. We have no remarkable event here lately, but the death of Dr. Lee; nor have I anything new to communicate to you of your friends or affairs. I am with unalterable affection & wishes for your prospering my dear Sir, your sincere friend and servant.

Th. Jefferson
 
Jefferson was a candy-ass who always managed to be someplace else when Patriots blood was needed.
 
Your point? I mean, if you're going to discuss the views of the founding fathers on the French revolution, Adams is far better; he had an almost prescient view of exactly what was going on in France and where it would lead (from here):
Adams saw the French Revolution as mob rule, nothing like the American Revolution, during which order was maintained even during the fighting.

"He says on many occasions," comments Ellis, "that this is going to be the classical pattern: a mob rule, violence and terror, and eventually the establishment of a despotic government, ruled by a single person." But when Adams wrote to Jefferson of his concerns, he discovered Jefferson was captivated by the events in France, believing the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution were one and the same. Adams was thunderstruck by Jefferson's response and by late 1793 their friendship had chilled.
So, once again, I ask, what's your point in quoting Jefferson on the topic of the French Revolution? Are you hoping we see the huge irony given that it was only thanks to money and men given to the U.S. by the king of France that the U.S. won against England, and it was, in part, because of that war debt that France ended up with a revolution? Is your aim to make us realize that we would do better to not quote Jefferson on the topic if trying to defend support of such revolutions for democracy and instead examine the damage to an economy and stability of any type of government when badly destroyed by war debts?

Or are you asking if revolutions can happen without innocents dying and the rule of law and justice going out the window? I would think the answer to that obvious and that none of us have to be reminded of it. Of course this will happen. It's very hard to have bloodless revolutions--or those that don't hurt the innocent however peaceful. Are you asking if it's worth the suspension of law and justice and the death of innocents--does the end justify the means? That question makes no sense either, as in the case of revolutions and radical political change, there is no "end" to anything. Ultimately the French Revolution led to Napoleon and then the return of the Kings. So all that can be argued is that intended ends justify the means and we know that to be nonsense. That would justify torturing people to stop terrorism even if torture is proven to be ineffective because all that matters is the intent, not whether it works or not in achieving the end.

So what are you asking us to notice? Or think about? Or talk about? And why quote Jefferson on this topic? Why not Adams or Washington? Why the French Revolution rather than the Russian or China's? Or the American Civil War come to that? :confused:
 
Jefferson was a candy-ass who always managed to be someplace else when Patriots blood was needed.

Jefferson liked to fuck. I would've preferred fucking to patrol.

Adams schmadams, Samuel Adams and the Anti-federalist papers are the ticket. Federalism is a wash.
 
Back
Top