<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Aug 8 2008, 09:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Aug 8 2008, 11:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know that Jefferson solely wanted an agricultural society, but ag was his interest no doubt. I would say that he didn't like the idea of the northern states using government to further their pocketbooks while taxing the south to pay for it. Hamilton was in love with the way the English did things and really was in love with the idea of big government here. Interestingly, at the time, there were three factions of people in the USA - those who wanted to side with England in its war against France, those who wanted to side with France, and the Washington/Adams faction that wanted to remain neutral.</div> Hamilton wanted neutrality in that war. The Pacificus letters were an excellent explanation why. Hamilton's views on England itself were an interesting phenomenon, and changed significantly when it suited him to do so. As for Jefferson and implied powers, the Louisiana Purchase tends to imply that he was malleable on the subject when he had to face it on a practical level. </div> I wouldn't call pushing for a treaty (Jay's Treaty) with the British staying neutral in the war. You can't blame Jefferson once the genie was out of the bottle.
Take it up with John Jay's ghost. Jefferson changed his tune on several issues when he was faced with them directly. The Alien and Sedition Act comes to mind.
^^ and people think Guantanamo is bad. And there's no doubt Jefferson turned into a Democrat, which means he wasn't Libertarian anymore.
I'm not trying to justify the PATRIOT act, torture (which I think is counterproductive) or any other measures taken by the Bush Administration to protect America. But aren't these liberals who oppose the PATRIOT act for being unconstitutional the same people that would be inclined to justify the New Deal policies of FDR in the 30's?
^^^ The Japanese internment camps in the USA were both a violation of civil rights and a hell of a lot worse than Gitmo. People don't have perspective to realize how limited government's actions on this score have been since 9/11.
The difference is that the PATRIOT Act is constitutional, while the New Deal is only constitutional because Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court if they kept invalidating it...
^^^ That and to the best of my knowledge, and I've followed it VERY closely, we have only tortured 3 of the most dangerous of people, and it did lead to credible intel. Explain why FDR wasn't a fascist.
He had some pronounced Fascistic tendencies, without a doubt. I'm no fan of his to begin with though.
^^^ I think he admired Hitler during the 1930s, because Hitler was able to end Germany's pain from the world-wide Great Depression while FDR's programs were miserable failures. If pressed, I'm sure I can dig up direct quotes to substantiate it. What's the difference between a Germany using its industry to build war materiel, and the USA using Ford and GM and Boeing to build war materiel?
^ During the '30s, there is little difference. After that point, slave labor makes a pretty big distinction. Roosevelt admiring Hitler during the '30s is right on point from what I've read too.
^^^ The kind of our labor was forced in its own way. If you have to rely on the govt. for a paycheck or face the soup lines, you are in effect slave to govt. Govt. didn't pay well, either, not even the GIs.
Are you seriously comparing the use of Americans to Nazi Germany's use of concentration camp inmates as slaves?
^^^ No, the US used other means to get free labor. Like paying a paycheck then asking for it back for war bonds. Though FDR had a great jewish friend in Morganthau, there's a lot of evidence he wasn't particular fond of jews.
