I've noticed that a lot of people tend to really dislike Thomas Jefferson. I actually sort of used to think that he was the great thinker of the American Revolution but after all the reading and opinions that I've heard, I'm not so sure. What you think about him as a thinker, president, and person?
In honor of his 273rd birthday, Thomas Jefferson thread.
As a Christian I'm predisposed not to like him. By all accounts he's one my religion's greatest enemies.
>>981688
>that he was the great thinker of the American Revolution but after all the reading and opinions that I've heard, I'm not so sure
It was actually Madison, Hamilton and Adams that were the thinkers of the revolution. What Jefferson did was ensure French alliances and support and wrote a very rough draft of the Declaration of Independence. Madison is, imo, the true founding father of the United States of America. Hamilton quickly perverted the purpose of the revolution and used Washington as a sock puppet for 8 years after federalization.
>>981688
Jefferson was a true liberal, in the classical sense. His attacks on Christianity on one hand and his insistence on small government and individualism on the other means that both conservatives and modern liberals have things to dislike about him
>>981719
>>981708
I've been reading his thoughts on slavery recently. I am opposed to making value judgments of historical figures, but it is rather amusing to see the Marquis de Lafayette talking shit to him and Jefferson basically lying that they were trying to get rid of it.
In hindsight I think the whole "wolf by the ears" thing was probably just him saying what would earn him the most favor.
>>981708
Actually the real thinker behind the revolution was Thomas Paine, and it's not particularly close. America wouldn't exist as it does today without Common Sense.
>>981737
Jefferson, like Washington, was a true Virginian at heart but understood . It's no real surprise that he saw slavery as a part of a system while being personally opposed to it due to his liberal values.
>>981740
I would argue against that as Paine was pro-revolution and his authorship contributed greatly, he did not play an active role in it's orchestration. It's like crediting Julius Evola with the social revolutions of Italy in the early to mid 20th century.
>>981719
Nope without the economic basis provided by Adam Smith liberalism was a shit, and Jefferson didnt know shit about economics so he was just a shit romantic (avant la lettre) idealist and nothing more
>>981751
See, I don't think he was opposed to it. I'd argue that Washington definitely was, but Jefferson was really far into it. He spent a lot of his adult life trying to convince himself that it was okay.
Perhaps Patrick Henry is more important?
>>981751
Evola never came close to the appeal paine had in America in the late eighteenth century
>>981740
And now I just realized where Dan Carlin got the name of his podcast from.
>>981776
this better be b8
9/10 got me to reply
>>981778
Among normies tho
>>981799
No, I'm being completely serious. I just never thought of it.
>>981812
And Paine was taken seriously among Republicans, not among loyalists or monarchists who were the normies so really your point is pretty fucking moot
>>981763
liberal economics, without the political aspects, civil rights, rule of law, ect, would be terrible
>>981840
No. First of all it depends on what part of evolas life were talking about. In fascist Italy he was revered by many but not all fascists and their sympathizers and he was never championed by the regime and was aloof from the whole movement. After WWII he became a definite pariah from mainstream politics and attached himself to the rump fascist party that arose. He was popular among this tiny fringe but his mentorship of this leaders was disastrous for their image. I do admit he became popular among other far right groups, but like the neofascists in Italy, these have always been tiny groups. On the contrary Payne's common sense was widely circulated among commoners and Republican activists alike. He also was very influential in his own way in England. Besides that, the loyalists and monarchists were not exactly heavyweight in American politics during and after the revolutoon
>>981877
>Besides that, the loyalists and monarchists were not exactly heavyweight in American politics during and after the revolutoon
A general academic estimate of 3% of Americans actually participated in the revolution so you can take that revisionism and shove it. If Paine's call for revolution and his pro-revolutionary pamphlets were as influential for the average colonial individual as you say (obviously they weren't) that number would be far higher. So again: Your point that Paine is anything more than a catalyst is fucking moot.
>>981877
>In fascist Italy he was revered by many but not all fascists and their sympathizers and he was never championed by the regime
Also this is explicitly false as he was heralded by Mussolini multiple times.
>>981885
How many Americans actually supported the Revolution, regardless of whether they were involved?
>>981890
Sure, he did express admiration for evola, but he was not an official ideologue like gentile or others and was not wholly popular
>>981885
No reason why you're so angry desu. You make a fair enough point except Evola didnt nearly provide as much inspiration for fasists as Payne did for Republicans. Evola wrote after world war one and much more after fascism conquered power in Italy and became a fact. He simply provided a post hoc justification for the regime and even then it distorted his philosophy considering how many bad things he had to say for fascisn. I don't know why you have to insist him and Payne played analagous intellectual roles when clearly they didnt
>>981909
Most people seemed to be indifferent. In fact, contrary to popular belief, popular sentiment turned against the war as it grew late and even more so after victory was won due to the economic hardship the U.S. faced immediately after. Federalization was an attempt to bring American unity in the face of this adversity, but Washington's presidency was plagued with nearly all of the same issues and almost resulted in a civil war. Things didn't really pick up for the U.S. until Jefferson's presidency and even then they weren't cemented until Madison.
>>981927
Could there be comparisons drawn between the American Revolutionary War, and Syrian Civil War?
* Citizens just want to live in peace, and take care of their families
* Ideologues on both sides
* Without foreign aid (French for America, and Turkey/GCC for syrian rebels), they would've been wiped out
>>981934
Almost all civil wars include outside intervention and most of the population staying on the sidelines to see how things play out. As for ideologues those are a dime a dozen in any day and age.
>>981934
I still don't understand why the French get all the credit. The Spanish and Dutch did just as much work in the Atlantic as the French. The Prussians did as much work, if not more due to a greater presence, on the ground as Lafayette. It was more a big European coalition of FUCK YOU to Britain than any objectively French intervention (though the French were the first player). Regardless, I don't know if that is a fair comparison or not. The idealogues of the Revolution weren't near as radical as Syria nor were the hardships as obvious or as difficult. Americans couldn't really sell their crops nor could they afford to import material goods, but they weren't starving nor dying of thirst.
>>981688
he impregnated his wifes mulatto slave sister like 50 times
>>981976
And?
>>981688
Quickest way to spot someone that knows fuckall about American History: They talk shit about Jefferson.
Same goes for Paine.
>>981857
How so?
>>982052
>Same goes for Paine
Paine was a reactionary cunt who thought everyone who didn't agree with him was a british cuck
after common sense he was worthless
Why did France sell the Louisiana Purchase? To fund the Napoleonic Wars?
>>983293
It was a 4-way game of international treaty chicken between America, France, UK, and Spain.
>>981688
Was he the anti corporate guy?
>>981688
He raped his slaves and took scissors to the bible and cut out the bits he didn't like. What more do you need to know?
>>981688
"I'm not so sure" sounds just about right. Jefferson in some instances wrote about what a deplorable institution slavery was, and in others described blacks as subhumans who needed to be enslaved. He was a great and influential thinker, but never a very consistent one. As President, he was alright, but he fucked up big time with the Embargo Act, which crippled the American economy. His greatest accomplishment in office was the Louisiana Purchase, which he was very hesitant to do, believing it to be outside of the federal government's authority.
Overall, a great man and one worth honoring, but not without all due scrutiny. Personally, I think he was too much of an ideologue for his own good, but you could say the same about many other founders.
>>981751
>It's no real surprise that he saw slavery as a part of a system while personally impregnating all of his female slaves due to his liberal values.
fixd
>>982126
kek. Paine was English himself. Also, common sense was only a minor work of his really. He wrote a lot actually but Americans only study him within the context of their own history even though he was influential in the history of ideas or, at the very least, intellectual thought in the British isles and America as it came to develop in the nineteenth century. You're ignorance is showing senpai.
