"The flames kindled on the Fourth of July, 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1821.
Jun 30
RSS feed
Wed, 11/12/2008 - 10:16pm
No foreign Entanglements, Focus on America, not anyone else....
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 12:03pm
No.It wouldn't always work in other countries.
M. Calcott
Tue, 10/14/2008 - 8:10pm
To the last two posters:
The precise system of governance that has been set up in America is unique to our situation and could not necessarily be applied to that of another nation; however, that is not what Mr. Jefferson means. He means only that the principles upon which the American government is based were spreading, which is true. Our government was the first in modern history to be based on philosophical ideas rather than traditions.
It is also worthy of note that the spreading of which Mr. Jefferson speaks is in the passive voice. It is paradoxical and quite irrational to attempt to spread egalitarian ideals by force (as the Jacobins of France intended).
To K. Suarez:
I must, before beginning, point out that the American government is not a democracy: it is a republic with some democratic elements. A pure democracy is unstable and liable to become a despotism of the majority. I refer you to the second remark made by HR: he or she explains it quite well.
The United States is hated throughout the eastern world not for the problems among the elected officials but for the very reason that it is a republic. The policy of the Muslim terrorists is one of forcible conversion to Islam. The constitutional protections of personal liberties are by nature antithetical to their mission.
To the person who said that the Founding Fathers were lining their pockets:
Are you by any chance a resentful citizen of Great Britain?
~ Publia
Thu, 10/02/2008 - 9:32am
I categorically disagree with your statement. Nowadays it is unambiguously clear that the American system of government is hated throghout most of the eastern world, so much so, that they are murdering us in our own soil. Our laws can no longer save us from our own representatives, who look after their own personal interests and nobody else's, and about laws not changing drastically, tell that to the people at my place of work who, after the financial disaster the current administration has gotten this country into, lost their jobs without explanation from one day to the next.
Democracy as a form of government is not a problem. America democracy as it is practiced today is.
K. Suarez
Thu, 09/25/2008 - 2:11pm
American democracy can easily be upheld in other nations because so many people like the way our government is run. We elect our representatives that stay true to our interests, and our laws are plainly set out and almost never change dramatically. Democracy is fair and can be spread to other countries without any conflict as long as existing political parties are not hostile.
Wed, 09/24/2008 - 8:56am
I would tend to disagree with that comment, though there are terrorist in Iraq there are smaller forms of democracy that thrive in their everyday life. Even before we learn about democracy we are practicing it in our everyday lives, in our family, at school... There are many instances that this occurs, even if you may not think of them as democracies they are and it is the same in Iraq and around the world.
Wed, 09/17/2008 - 9:04pm
If we could thrive on foreign soil why have we not? This proves we could not thrive elsewhere. Iraq for example we can't thrive there we establish rule but are opposed. Terrorists still are in our country we cannot rid them of our own then we cannot take them away other places. We need to so we could establish government.
It is possible yet hard to take over half of the world. We could to an extent think about the Romans they thrived on foreign soil to a extent. If America made one mistake we might have civil war. We would be destroyed all together. There are many risks to an empire. We could thrive on foreign soil to an extent.
- a 10-year old student of Virginia
Wed, 09/17/2008 - 8:21pm
The colonies were not for conquest, but simply for supplies which britain lacked.
Mon, 09/01/2008 - 7:48pm
i belive so if it worked here why cant it work there .its the same consept why shoud the soil matter
Sat, 07/26/2008 - 11:31am
How about this one? "We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep into our own history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular."
Thu, 07/17/2008 - 1:56pm
I agree with your chosen quote.
Sat, 07/05/2008 - 11:39am
Ideally the answer would be yes. But, unfortunately, it is not so. That is why we are engaged in a war with terrorists and extremists. We are still fighting for nothing less than the survival of Western civilisation. Some countries will never understand or accept the values we cherish and the democracy that has grown over the centuries--from the beginning with the ancient Greeks.
And most importantly, we have our ties to the Mother Country. Our foundation is the rule of British law. From Magna Carta to our glorious Declaration and the Constitution. This is something truly special. It is the foundation, the bedrock. It is a gift--and I can see what happens in countries who reject this gift.
Other countries have and will choose our path--in their way--and it is helpful if they have the foundation of Western civilisation. But, large portions of the globe will not achieve this-even if they have citizens who speak with reason and enlightenment. The unevolved will still struggle to have their way and tyrannical governments will still oppress their peoples.
However, as Churchill said: "Never, never give up." And we won't.
Sat, 07/05/2008 - 8:27am
More than likely, this site uses "The Papers of Thomas Jefferson" series as edited by Julian P. Boyd. You can find this series at most college and university libraries. As this quotation is from 1821, it would more than likely be found in the Retirement Series of Jefferson's papers, edited by J. Jefferson Looney.
Sat, 07/05/2008 - 8:24am
If you would read a few biographies of prominent American founders, including Mr. Jefferson himself, you would realize that many of the founding fathers were by no means "rich". Jefferson, Washington, and other southern founders owed a great deal of money to British merchants. The American colonies were a source of raw materials, they did not use the "U.S. military" to obtain raw materials from other countries. You are sorely mistaken, Mr. or Ms. "Anonymous." Please review your facts.
Fri, 07/04/2008 - 7:55pm
The founding fathers were ahead of the times in alot of ways. They saw a future for the country that we have fullfilled and then some. I like to belive that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the like would be proud of what we have done as americans. Happy fourth to everyone.
Fri, 07/04/2008 - 9:51am
The founding fathers were rich opportunists who wanted to avoid paying taxes to their government. Then, as now, they used the U.S. military to obtain raw resources from other nations, and open up world markets to U.S trade, further lining their pockets.
Thu, 07/03/2008 - 8:51pm
Can American democracy thrive on foreign soil? This is a question that has been answered in the affirmative time and time again during the 232 years of our nation's existence. If not for the will of previous generations of Americans to do that which was exceedingly difficult and perhaps even politically and socially unpopular, countries such as Italy, France, the Philippines, South Korea, and Kuwait would be owned and occupied by those who opposed them--and England would undoubtedly be a German speaking country.
Today, each of these countries remains free as a result of America's will to spread democracy and freedom abroad. To think in terms of days, weeks and years (as most Americans seem to do these days) instead of decades and centuries is to have a micro view of the geo-political world in which we live today...and yes, that we have lived in (though admittedly to a smaller degree) in Mr. Jefferson's time. As a retired United States Marine who is unabashedly proud to be an American, I thank God every day for the men who founded this great nation, including any of the human flaws they most assuredly possessed. B. DOW, Williamsburg, VA
Thu, 07/03/2008 - 6:53pm
Can American democracy thrive on foreign soil? Hardly, as there are no Thomas Jefferson extant. Can they learn from and draw on American founding principles? Yes, if they can accept Mr. Jefferson's belief in the goodness of Man. Mr. Jefferson believed Every Man yearns to live free, and with education, would build a nation of creative, curious, responsible, altruistic citizenry.
Thu, 07/03/2008 - 5:03pm
I agree with "A Virginian" that understanding Jefferson on his own merits is the cricial starting point. As lofty as his Mt. Rushmore reputation is now, Jefferson was a creature of his times then.
His enignmatic personality and public persona are often at odds (see Ellis' splendid biography for that analysis). The champion for the "unalienable Rights. . .[of] Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," Jefferson was positively conflicted philosophically and politically over the issue of slavery: ". . .we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go."
His euphoric view that the democratic flames of the American revolution "have spread" across the globe is indeed perplexing for his time. I also agree that "self-determination" is the driver behind the establishment of government and no prinicple is greater than the protection by law of the natural rights of all people.
D. Cicotello
Omaha, Nebraska
Thu, 07/03/2008 - 9:43am
One of my favorite quotes from Edward R. Murrow--"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.”
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 3:34pm
How about complete citations for the quotations that are posted? Context is always a good thing.
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 12:17am
Democracy is defined as majority rule. In the city-state of Athens there was a democracy. In a democracy unlike the U.S.A. rather than electing someone to represent a group of people, all citizens would vote on laws and proposals. That is not what the founders intended. Only about 2% of the population at the time the Constitution was adopted were able to vote. In a Democracy like I stated in my previous post to this blog the majority can vote to violate the rights of the minority because the majority rules in a Democracy. In a constitutional republic the nation is governed by the rule of law rather than the rule of the majority. A constitution is the rule of law in a constitutinal republic. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect individual natural rights of people from the infringement of those rights by the government but also from a majority who would like to violate those rights. For example since the U.S.A. is not a democracy a majority can not vote to disallow someone(s) from exercising their freedom of speech or religion. In Jefferson's day if one took a poll on the issue of slavery for example they result would probably have been that the majority see nothing wrong with slavery being legal. It is true that slavery was legal but my point is that just because the majority thinks something is ok does not mean that one should reach the conclusion that it is ok. This is the problem with majority rule. The majority might be wrong. This is why individual natural rights should be protected by law.
HR
Tue, 07/01/2008 - 10:10pm
Jefferson says "have spread". I'm no historian, but perhaps he's talking about the French Revolution, which he ardently supported, or Haitian Independence of the early 19th C.
American democracy was born of extremely unique circumstances, and while many revolutions may appear similar on the surface (not unlike the French Revolution did to many Americans who recently had fought for their own independence), they are very likely to follow a decidedly different course.
I think the American example can plant the seed of liberty in foreign nations, but the exercise of force against anyone or any nation for any other purpose than self-defense is antithetical to American democracy. That it has persisted for so long, both domestically and internationally, is deplorable.
Tue, 07/01/2008 - 3:23pm
Jefferson never says how the flames of the 4th will spread over the globe. Indeed, the flames have spread, but in a variety of ways. To force democracy on anyone is a contridiction in terms. It must be the will of the people.
-A Student of Virginia
Tue, 07/01/2008 - 2:55pm
What is the difference between a "constitutional republic" and the democracy you define above?
Tue, 07/01/2008 - 1:55pm
The U.S.A. was established as a constitutional republic not a democracy. A democracy is when 51% of a population can vote to violate the natural rights of the other 49% of the population.
HR
Tue, 07/01/2008 - 11:49am
Sure, it sounds good when Jefferson says it, but it's presumptuous to cram democracy down the throats of countries that aren't interested. Current efforts to export the American Way have been tragic failures. Simply removing a despot and declaring democracy without regard to a society's structure isn't an improvement.
Mon, 06/30/2008 - 11:17pm
History demonstrates that Jefferson misapprehended the strength of the appeal of the despot, the tyrant, and the dictator to the powerless and the powerful. He missed the charm of authoritarianism to the small businessman and the coal miner, to the disenfranchised and the franchised, to the capitalist and the one-gallus farmer, to the mill worker and the entrepreneur, to the peasant and the industrialist, to the atheists and the audience of the radio-priests, to every person who considers his ideas and goals by government thwarted and himself by his representatives oppressed, to all who would have a strongman in the saddle long enough to cure his socioeconomic ills by giving him the advantage of his inferiors and his betters.
Jefferson's idealism, and his confidence in humankind, is admirable, indeed, but breathtakingly naive. Laudable, but mistaken.
Jefferson had only to look to the example of a man who helped him father the Fourth, who asked him to draft the declaration, his predecessor in the presidency, John Adams, to see how easily a willful man can persuade a Congress and a national constituency to make of democracy a tool to suppress liberty in the interests of class, and only to his down-home rival, Patrick Henry, whom Jefferson credited with giving the impetus to the first ball fired in the Revolution, to understand the power of populism to subvert freedom.
Jefferson's implicit self-praise of the Declaration he drafted is unbecoming, and the notion that his bill of particulars against George III could somehow be the world's bulwark against despotism is by turns arrogant, unrealistic, and silly. And probably not, in 1776, what he had in mind.
In the America for which Jefferson declared independence, if nowhere else, the citizenry has consistently demonstrated its preference for the man on the white horse—the John Adamses, the Abraham Lincolns, the Jefferson Davises, the Father Coughlins, the Jerry Fallwells, the Huey Longs, the Joe McCarthies, the Richard Nixons, the George Bushes, the Justice Taneys and Thomases, all the people doubtful and afraid of self-determination—to any friend of federalism and constitutional order.
If most of it was derivative, Jefferson contributed much to American political thought, but we should be careful of not repeating Lincoln's mistake, not attributing to Jefferson, his mind, his influence, or his Declaration, much that could properly be described as bedrock, far visioned or unobvious.
Let's make of this Fourth of July an opportunity to realistically reconsider Jefferson and all the founders. So long as we keep him on a pedestal, we can little from him learn. As soon as we begin to consider him as on his merits, our understanding of self government will profit.
—A Virginian
Post new comment