Thomas Jefferson

So for Jefferson and other agrarian-minded Southerners, farming was the only virtuous occupation for men, and the only occupation that truly allowed men to be free. Crafts, industry, and the trades made men dependent on bosses, customers, and suppliers, and created in men greedy, self-serving personalities. Further, for Jefferson, rural living was healthy; city life corrupting. For him, farming and the countryside were necessary preconditions for the growth of democracy. Of cities and government he wrote: "The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body."7 In short, greedy, dependent, ambitious men were not the stuff from which democracies were made. The Republic would only thrive if the nation were an agrarian nation of farmers.

YOUR WELCOME STOLOSKI KIDS---KD

thomas jefferson

Michael bloxx

Two works of political science that greatly influenced the constitution of the united states were:

Cyropedia by Xenophon

The Prince by Machiavelli

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, and it was debated and approved by the Second Continental Congress in 1776.

YES

Most of the "Founding Fathers" who became famous knew each other and worked together.

Since Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence and was one of the signers we may assume he met the other men who signed it including:

John Adams (2nd president of the USA)

Samuel Adams (cousin of John Adams, statesman, political philosopher, governor of Massachusetts, namesake of the beer)

Benjamin Franklin (inventor, publisher, philosopher, diplomat, politician, face of the $100 bill)

Elbridge Gerry (from whose name we get the term "Gerrymandering"

John Hancock (whose large signature on Declaration gives us the slang of "John Hancock" for signatures)

He also knew many other prominent figures of the time including

George Washington (commander of the colonial forces during the Revolutionary War and later the 1st President)

James Monroe (a close friend - who also became president of the USA)

Marquis de Lafayette (another close friend - French Aristocrat and military commander of significant US forces during the Revolutionary War)

John Jay (President of the Continental Congress and 1st Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the USA)

He certainly met a lot of other famous people but this brief list should be enough to demonstrate that - YES - hid DID meet many other famous people in the Revolutionary War.

Meriwether Lewis was paid $40 a month, because of his higher rank and William Clark received $30 per month. There is a listing for pay for enlisted men ($5 a month), and sergeants ($8) a month. Drouillard, the hunter and interpreter, made $25 a month.

She died on 6 September 1782 possibly of complications of diabetes shortly after giving birth to her seventh child.

The idea of natural rights

"Nick Mays"

it is important because it was a house/home to former president Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson played an active role in starting the Revolution, serving as a member of the Continental Congress that declared independence. He wrote and sighed the Declaration of Independence.

When initially working together on the Declaration of Independence, they had a warm relationship. Over time, however, it soured. John Adams would eventually come to loathe Franklin. Adams would later describe his "relationship" with Franklin as such:

"That I have no friendship for Franklin I avow. That I am incapable of having any with a man of his moral sentiments I avow."

Simply put...he didn't much like him.

he was the govenor of viginia in 1779 and 1780

This is a lecture from my U.S. history class at Miracosta college. Posted by: Arturo Arevalos, my history teacher.
It would be hard to imagine how Americans could govern themselves without political parties constantly vying for the voters' support by formulating alternative policies and offering different leaders to deal with the vital public business. Yet these institutions for democratic decision-making did not exist at the birth of the Republic. Those who designed the Federal Constitution in 1788 made no provision for parties and indeed the founding fathers increasingly denounced groups seeking political power as "factions-scheming, narrow, selfish elements pursuing goals contrary to the common good, the bane of all experiments in free government". Nevertheless in the decade immediately following the adoption of the federal constitution, modern political parties began to appear in the United States. For over a decade the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans competed for power. Federalist dominance during the 1790s generated a strong Republican counter-attack that captured the national government in 1801 and steadily overcame opposition in the states. Rarely has partisan conflict engendered so much fear, hatred and bitterness as in the 1790s. Each party accused the other of desiring to subvert the established order and of harboring dangerous partiality for foreign nations and alien ideologies. Each denounced the other as factious and challenged the legitimacy of opposition. It seemed for a while that the worst fears of the framers of the Constitution were realized: the nation was torn apart by corrosive rivalries that were destroying the unity indispensable for national survival. Charles Beard was the most influential exponent of an economic interpretation of American history. For him it unlocked the secret of the origin of American political parties. He argued that rivalry between conservative merchants, capitalists and other large property owners and radical mechanics, workers, planters, and small farmers shaped American political experience. Those radicals who opposed the Constitution did so because they believed it served the interests of the wealthy. They became known as Anti-Federalists and later Jeffersonian Republicans. Conservative supporters of the Constitution believed it served their interests and sought to reap the rewards under the banner of the Federalist Party. For a decade the Federalists ruled for the benefit of merchants, manufacturers and holders of public securities until the rural masses led by some planters organized the Republican Party as a vehicle for recapturing government from the moneyed aristocracy. Success came in the revolution of 1800 when Thomas Jefferson, champion of agrarian democracy, was elected President. It is argued that class conflict gave rise to the two-party system. We begin by customarily separating American political history into three periods, using changes in party names as the basis of division. According to this scheme, there have been three great party alignments since the formation of the Constitution: Federalist versus Republican/Democrats 1789-1816, Whigs against the Democrats 1830-1856, and Republicans against Democrats 1856-present. These alignments have been merely phases of one broken conflict originating in the age of George Washington and continuing to our own time (the only difference is that what once Republicans argued for is now being placed at the steps of Democrats who wish to rid themselves of this new stigma- that of supporting a strong centralist government). The first of these alignments was connected more or less directly with the contest over framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution. Authorities generally agree that the main support for the Constitution came from merchants, manufacturers, government bondholders and other people of substantial property interests. The opposition came mainly from inland farmers, debtors and less prosperous families of the country. The feelings aroused by the contest over the Constitution had not disappeared when the first administration was organized in 1789 with Washington at the helm. It was the economic measures of Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, which in time divided the country into two parties. Seven of his policies deserve attention. The first was the funding of the national debt. All the old bonds, certificates and other evidences of indebtedness issued by the Continental Congress during the Revolution were called in. New bonds for face value given to the holders angered some Americans for this benefited only a handful. The assumption of the revolutionary debts of the states was the second issue. The Federal government called in the revolutionary debts of the states and issued new federal bonds; that is, the Federal government assumed the obligations of the states and added them to the general debt of the nation. Thus the common people, not the wealthy, paid for the war. These two operations, funding and assumption, deeply affected the purses of the masses. Before Hamilton began his work, the old bonds and notes issued during the Revolution had been selling at from ten to twenty cents on the dollar, because the national government and several states had failed to meet their obligations. During the dark days of uncertainty a large part of this paper had been bought at low prices with a view to profit making. In the end, funding and assumption increased the value of the depreciated securities to the amount of forty million dollars. To raise the money to pay the interest on the debt, the federal government had to lay heavy taxes on the people, most of who were farmers, not bondholders. The third cause was the passing of protective tariffs. This measure was for the protection of American industries by the imposition of custom duties on imports coming into competition with American products. Hamilton openly favored an elaborate system of protectionism. Although his plans were not adopted in full, the first revenue bill passed in 1789 was mildly protective and in time other protective features were added. Consumers always pay more when tariffs are added, while manufactures charge higher prices without fear of foreign competition. This angered the masses. The idea of a United States Bank was the next measure. Under Hamilton's leadership, Congress chartered a banking corporation. Three-fourths of its securities were new federal bonds. It was empowered to issue currency and do general business. Who was allowed to hold these bonds and who made handsome profits only angered the masses against the privileged elites. A sound national currency benefited one class at the expense of another. Under the new Constitution, the states had to stop issuing paper money. The gold and silver coin of the United States now provided by law became the money of the country, with the notes of the U.S. Bank circulating on parity. Can you figure out how a sound national currency helps one class at the expense of another? Hamilton favored American shipping to encourage the construction of an American Merchant Marine. Congress provided that the tonnage duties on foreign-built and foreign-owned ships should be five times as high as the duties on American ships. In line with this, other concessions were made to native shipping, especially that engaged in the China trade. Once again the masses would pay for the huge gains of the few owners of American shipping. The seventh measure, the creation of a national defense, which could be used against the people of the United States, really angered the public (one might argue it was the creation of our modern National Guard which gives the executive branch of a state or nation the power to use an army against the people). In creating a navy and a standing army, Congress had more in mind than the mere defense of the country against foreign foes. The navy was useful in protecting commerce on the high sea and the army in suppressing uprisings such as had occurred in Mass. in 1786. In other words, economic factors as well as patriotism were involved in the process. Who paid for the military, and who served in the forces and who benefited were questions which when answered angered the masses. In foreign affairs, most Americans stood with France. But when the wars of the French Revolution broke out in Europe, the Washington administration, largely inspired by Hamilton, sympathized with England as opposed to France. It looked as if the United States had abandoned the French. It was the French who helped the United States obtain its independence and many Americans disliked the Federalists. Now these measures were not excursions in theory. They were acts of power involving the pocketbooks of groups, affecting the distribution of wealth and the weight of classes in politics. Certainly six of them bore directly upon the economic interest of citizens (which six do you think?). Under these laws, large sums of money were paid to holders of government bonds who had been receiving little or nothing; people who were moderately off one day found themselves rich the next. Under these laws, stockholders in the U.S. Bank earned handsome profits on their investment, protected manufacturers entered upon a period of prosperity, and merchants and moneylenders were enabled, by the sound national currency system, to carry on their operations safely in all parts of the country. Under these laws heavy taxes were collected to pay the interest on the bonds to maintain a new government. Were these things done for the beneficiaries at the expense of other classes, notably the farmers, or did the increased production caused by the operations more than cover the cost? On this point economists disagree and historians cannot answer the question mathematically. In any event, however, a considerable proportion of the American people came to the conclusion that the Federalist measures and policies enumerated above in part transferred money to investors, merchants, manufacturers and the capitalistic interests in general at the expense of the masses, a majority of whom were farmers and planters. In time the citizens who took this view of the Hamiltonian programs were called Anti-Federalists and later Democrat/Republicans under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson who once stated that the "cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, and they are tied to their country and webbed to its liberty and interests by lasting bonds." In logical relation he had a low opinion of commerce and industry, which created urban masses. "The mobs of great cities" he asserted, "add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body." Holding such opinions, Jefferson set out to enlist a large following in his struggle against the capitalistic measures of Hamilton. He made his strongest appeal to the agriculturalists of the country. And when his party was fully organized he took pride in saying that the whole landed interest is Republican. Appealing to the farmers and the masses in general against the large capitalistic interest, Jefferson's party inevitably took a popular, that is, a democratic turn. This was in keeping with his theories, for he thought that kings, clergy, nobles and other ruling classes of Europe had filled their countries with poverty and misery and kept the world in turmoil with useless wars. The common people, he reasoned, if given liberty and left alone would be happier under their own government than under any ruling class. Thus his party became a democratic-republican form of government. Economic issues alone did not create the new party. The Anti-Federalists also had ideological differences, which helped formulate the second party. At the center of the theoretical expression of the Anti-Federalist opposition was increased centralization of power in the national government. The Anti-Federalists believed that a republican government could only work for a relatively small territory and a relatively small and homogeneous population. Associated with the argument regarding size was the assumption that any people who were to govern themselves must be relatively homogeneous in interest, opinion, habits and mores. They also argued that the way Federalists had set up the national government precluded the common person from running for office for it was too highly elevated and distinguished. They wanted a government run by the common man not just a government of the rich. Plus associated with a government of the rich was the argument that the Constitution did not deal with human nature. Anti-Federalists chided the Federalists for their excessive confidence in the future virtue of elected officials and criticized the Constitution for its failure to provide adequate protection against the operation of "Bad Drives." Absolute power corrupts Absolutely if there are no safeguards. It is to be noted that this dreadful lust for power was regarded as a universal characteristic of man, which could be controlled but not eradicated. They charged the authors of the Constitution failed to put up strong barriers to block this corruption. They were also upset at the exclusion of religious tests as dangerous and impolitic. For without such, they supposed pagans, deists and others might obtain offices among us and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans, etc. They wanted a more rigid system of separation of powers, more numerous and more effective checks and balances than the Federalists. And they argued that their biggest fear was with the Senate more than the Presidency. They wanted the Senate checked. The power to recall should be made easier. The Anti-Federalists also wanted the Constitution to have a bill of rights for the security of the common man's liberties. They therefore argued for a bill of rights as well as making the Constitution easily understood by the common man. The Constitution was far too brief. They wanted a constitution, which was detailed and easy to read. Finally, they too shared with the authors of the Federalist Papers the fear of parties and factions. Paradoxically, their differences with the Federalists created the two-party system. It was a system that existed since the beginning of the revolution within the revolution and was made possible by Hamilton's economic programs and their ideological differences. The two-party system was created with the third presidential election. In this election, the party alignment was complete. Jefferson, the leader of the Republicans, was roundly denounced as an atheist; Adams, the Federalist, was condemned by his opponents as the Monarchist. So sharply drawn was the contest that Adams was chosen by the narrow margin of three electoral votes. This only unified the Republicans as the second party. The two-party system was created and from 1801 to 1829 presidents calling themselves Republican occupied the White House. Although the Federalists would suffer a lingering death and after 1816 would disappear from the national theater, the precedent of two national parties had been established. The philosophical and economic issues that divided the two parties then are still debated today.

Hobbes, an Enlightenment Philosopher believed people needed to be governed by an absolute monarch as described in his writing called the Leviathan.

The Louisiana Purchase was form Michigan to Louisiana or Mississippi River over to about the middle of Texas (Roughly) and up around Oregon then across Montana. I know this description sounds a little rough but if you get a map it will look a lot better.

He wrote Common Sense, a document to persuade more people to take the side of independance from Great Britan

Because he was one of the people who believed that the constitution shouldn't be interpreted and didn't believe in loose constitution (using the constitution as a guide, implying new rights and ideas from what is initially written in it).

What did he do? He went ahead and contradicted himself by getting himself into the Louisiana purchase. The constitution says that it's only up to congress to add a new part to the nation NOT the president. Thoman Jefferson was a man of many contradictions.

Revolution Against Tranny

In his two "Treatises on Government," John Locke justified the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that drove James II from the British throne. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson justified the American Revolution against George III and the British government. Both men said that people have a natural right to revolt against a tyrannical government.

Thomas Jefferson's claim of the declaration of independence was to create a society that is fully treate fairly and who understands the true fundamentals of the American colonist. Thus, it is interesting to consider, first of all that, the British ruler at that time weren't really treating the American people well. therefore, his main real purpose or reason what to grant the American people liberty, success, and happiness.

Alexander Hamilton:

Alexander Hamilton was an aide for George Washington in the American army. He resigns from the army in December 1783. He finds the newspaper, New York Evening Post. In his philosophy of Federalism, he becomes the opposite of Thomas Jefferson. He returns to the army in 1798, to respond to the potential conflict with France, and is awarded the rank of Major General. He wages a hostile campaign against Aron Burr, for the privilege of running against Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton is widely quoted as calling Burr a 'dangerous man', and Burr responds by challenging Hamilton into a duel. In July 1804, they meet and Burr prevails.Hamilton dies the next day, and is buried at Trinity Church in New York City. He is forty-seven.

In this short biography summarized by me, it shows that Hamilton was never a friend with Britain. (France supported America at Revolutionary War)

ANSWER BY: RuNeQuEsTiOn

http://www.geocities.com/digital_rat/policy4/fpch7.htm

Yes. The Declaration states that the colonies, previously acknowledging their rule by Britain and its king, had cause to terminate that rule and become a free and separate nation.

It was the colonies way of affirming their authority to rule themselves instead of being under the rule of England.

when did he make the purchase? he did it in 1985

John Adams didn't write the Declaration of Independence because 1. Since he defended the British for the Boston Massacre, many people hated him 2. He didnt want the King to think this was only a Massachusetts separation letter, given the fact almost all of the Revolution happened in Massachusetts, so he wanted Jefferson, a Virginia man, to write it because the King's favorite colony was Virginia because of the moneymaking tobacco plantations.