Good Morning...Founding Fathers' passing

[Okla-homey]

July 4, 1826 Death of the founding fathers

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8775/ad300pxdeclarationofindependen.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
50 years before their deaths, Adams and Jefferson (pictured here with colleague Ben Franklin) hammered out the Declaration of Independence

180 years ago today, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the second and third presidents of the United States, respectively, died on the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Both men had been central in the drafting of the historic document; Jefferson had authored it, and Adams, who was known as the "colossus of the debate," served on the drafting committee and had argued eloquently for the declaration's passage.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8599/adpresadamsjohn1ar.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
John Adams was short, portly and balding

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/36/adp0484wl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Tom Jefferson was tall with a thick mane of red hair

After July 4, 1776, Adams traveled to France as a diplomat, where he proved instrumental in winning French support for the Patriot cause, and Jefferson returned to Virginia, where he served as state governor during the dark days of the American Revolution.

After the British defeat at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, Adams was one of the negotiators of the Treaty of Paris that ended the war, and with Jefferson he returned to Europe to try to negotiate a US-British trade treaty.

After the ratification of the US Constitution, Adams was elected vice president to George Washington, and Jefferson was appointed secretary of state. During Washington's administration, Jefferson, with his democratic ideals and concept of states' rights, often came into conflict with Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who supported a strong federal government and conservative property rights.

Adams often arbitrated between Hamilton and his old friend Jefferson, though in politics he was generally allied with Hamilton.

In 1796, Adams defeated Jefferson in the presidential election, but the latter became vice president, because at that time the office was still filled by the candidate who finished second.

As president, Adams' main concern was America's deteriorating relationship with France, and war was only averted because of his considerable diplomatic talents. In 1800, Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans (the forerunner of the Democratic Party) defeated the Federalist party of Adams and Hamilton, and Adams retired to his estate in Quincy, Massachusetts.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/2596/adjohnadamsbirth9cl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Adams' humble home in Quincy, Mass. Another President, John Quincy Adams would be born to John and Abigail Adams in this house.

As president, Jefferson reduced the power and expenditures of the central government but advocated the purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France, which more than doubled the size of the United States.

During his second administration, Jefferson faced renewed conflict with Great Britain, but he left office before the War of 1812 began. Jefferson retired to his estate in Monticello, Virginia, but he often advised his presidential successors and helped establish the University of Virginia.

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/2174/adjeffersonmonticello9oy.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Jefferson's Monticello near Charlottesville VA.

Jefferson also corresponded with John Adams to discuss politics, and these famous letters are regarded as masterpieces of the American enlightenment.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/3189/adcapponadamsafloat7vf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The Adams-Jefferson letters are published and can be purchased in a single volume.

By remarkable coincidence, Jefferson and Adams died on the same day, Independence Day in 1826, the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Adams' last words were, "Thomas Jefferson still survives," though his old friend and political adversary had died a few hours before.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/3590/insane7zo9bg.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[SicEmBaylor]

They had a major falling out over that election and didn't speak to each other except indirectly through 3rd parties. They eventually reconciled, somewhat, but major damage to the relationship had already been done and it never fully recovered. Truly ironic that they both died on the same day.

I'd also point out that while the Democratic-Republicans eventually did evolve into the Democratic Party we know today there are many many major differences between the two. Both modern political parties borrow aspects from both the early Federalists and Anti-Federalists (later Democratic-Republicans). But that's a discussion for another time. :D

[Scott D]

one of those two men would be called a dirty libz by folks here today ;)

[Okla-homey]

one of those two men would be called a dirty libz by folks here today ;)

Yep Jefferson. He fit the profile of a dirty lib too, being all "all men are created equal" and all while keeping human beings in bondage and taking "liberties" with the hawt wimmen slaves.;)

[Scott D]

Yep Jefferson. He fit the profile of a dirty lib too, being all "all men are created equal" and all while keeping human beings in bondage and taking "liberties" with the hawt wimmen slaves.;)

oh and don't forget Adams feeling it was his civic duty to defend those 'dirty brits' for their crimes against those great patriots in Boston ;)

[StoopTroup]

Jefferson's hair.

LMAO.

[Scott D]

In 1796, Adams defeated Jefferson in the presidential election, but the latter became vice president, because at that time the office was still filled by the candidate who finished second.

getting away from this practice has been one of the worst moves in American Political History imo.

[Vaevictis]

Strictly speaking, the second place candidate still gets the vice-presidency, it's just that the politcal parties have rigged it so that the electors always vote it so that their President candidate comes in first and the VP candidate comes in second, right?

[Okla-homey]

getting away from this practice has been one of the worst moves in American Political History imo.

I quite agree. Kinda like a built-in loyal opposition guy to keep folks in the Prez. office honest and on their toes.

[Scott D]

Strictly speaking, the second place candidate still gets the vice-presidency, it's just that the politcal parties have rigged it so that the electors always vote it so that their President candidate comes in first and the VP candidate comes in second, right?

negative, the vice presidential candidate is selected not long after the end of the primaries (usually the guy who ran second in the primary). I don't remember exactly when the practice changed from the loser of the general election being vice president to a 'pre-selected' individual.

you are speaking more about the confirmation process which is basically voting for a vp candidate whom happens to be the selection of the presidential candidate in question.

[Frozen Sooner]

getting away from this practice has been one of the worst moves in American Political History imo.

I dunno. I never thought it was a great idea to have a built-in incentive for the opposition party to have the President assassinated.

[Okla-homey]

Kinda hard to imagine from our modern perspective that the XXth amendment ratified in 1933 actually had to contain a provision requiring the Congress to meet at least once a year.

personally, I'm always glad when legislatures aren't in session because they can do no harm when they're not there making laws and stuff.

[Vaevictis]

Kinda hard to imagine from our modern perspective that the XXth amendment ratified in 1933 actually had to contain a provision requiring the Congress to meet at least once a year.

Given the timing of the Presidential inauguration and the timing of the required meeting, it would seem to me that the required meeting has something to do with requiring Congress members to be available in case they're needed to select a President or VP. Of course, the same could have been achieved by requiring it every fourth year, so maybe not.


personally, I'm always glad when legislatures aren't in session because they can do no harm when they're not there making laws and stuff.

Meh, I don't know how I feel about that. Although I know the President can't directly do it, I keep having flashbacks of certain royal personages refusing to let certain legislative bodies convene in order to prevent their opposition.

[Okla-homey]

Meh, I don't know how I feel about that. Although I know the President can't directly do it, I keep having flashbacks of certain royal personages refusing to let certain legislative bodies convene in order to prevent their opposition.

I understand your concern, but I don't believe it could happen here. Per our Constitution, the legislature does not convene to do business at the pleasure of the executive branch and there is no provision under which the executive can order them to recess either.

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, I know. I don't see how it could happen either, but it doesn't stop me from being mildly paranoid.

[Octavian]

Yep Jefferson. He fit the profile of a dirty lib too, being all "all men are created equal" and all while keeping human beings in bondage and taking "liberties" with the hawt wimmen slaves.;)

It's sad that's what comes up first when people talk of him now...

[Okla-homey]

It's sad that's what comes up first when people talk of him now...

The dirty dancin' was and is his personal biz. The belief that chattel slavery was okay is more problematic. That said, he was a great American and we owe him a lot. I'm just unwilling to give him a pass on the slavery dealio given he was supposed to be "enlightened" and all.

[Octavian]

The dirty dancin' was and is his personal biz. The belief that chattel slavery was okay is more problematic. That said, he was a great American and we owe him a lot. I'm just unwilling to give him a pass on the slavery dealio given he was supposed to be "enlightened" and all.

He was the embodiment of the Enlightenment.

That he held slaves was a reflection (and a contradiction) of the times he lived in....I see your point but too often it seems like that's the first thing mentioned about him and other Founders (including Washington) like they were all a Grand Imperial Wizard or Bull Conner.

[Frozen Sooner]

Gotta look at people in the context of their time. There is something we do right now in this very day and age that people will look back and say "How in the Hell did they do that and think it was OK." Don't know what that thing is, but it's going to be there.

[Okla-homey]

Gotta look at people in the context of their time. There is something we do right now in this very day and age that people will look back and say "How in the Hell did they do that and think it was OK." Don't know what that thing is, but it's going to be there.

It will likely be in the area of our unbridled consumerism if I were to guess.

[Okla-homey]

He was the embodiment of the Enlightenment.

That he held slaves was a reflection (and a contradiction) of the times he lived in....I see your point but too often it seems like that's the first thing mentioned about him and other Founders (including Washington) like they were all a Grand Imperial Wizard or Bull Conner.

I didn't mean to imply his darkside outweighted his brightside. It didn't, but he was kinda kooky in many ways. Maybe "eccentric" is a better and perhaps less perjorative word.

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, that's a good one. Others that are likely candidates (I'm making no moral pronounciation as to which ones WILL be looked on with horror, just the likely candidates)

1. Abortion.
2. Gay rights-either the pro or con side ("I can't believe they let that **** go on" vs. "I can't believe they denied a basic human right to some people.")
3. Refusal to curtail hydrocarbon consumption and develop viable alternatives

What's ironic is it's probably going to be something we don't even think about now.

[Okla-homey]

Well, that's a good one. Others that are likely candidates (I'm making no moral pronounciation as to which ones WILL be looked on with horror, just the likely candidates)

1. Abortion.
2. Gay rights-either the pro or con side ("I can't believe they let that **** go on" vs. "I can't believe they denied a basic human right to some people.")
3. Refusal to curtail hydrocarbon consumption and develop viable alternatives

What's ironic is it's probably going to be something we don't even think about now.

4. They didn't save. They just spent like crazy and lived like there was no tomorrow. How could they do that? (related to unbridled consumerism of course)

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, the ones that are looked back upon with the most horror seem to be the ones that were widely accepted and taken for granted.

[yermom]

Well, that's a good one. Others that are likely candidates (I'm making no moral pronounciation as to which ones WILL be looked on with horror, just the likely candidates)

1. Abortion.
2. Gay rights-either the pro or con side ("I can't believe they let that **** go on" vs. "I can't believe they denied a basic human right to some people.")
3. Refusal to curtail hydrocarbon consumption and develop viable alternatives

What's ironic is it's probably going to be something we don't even think about now.

that was the first one i thought of...

i wonder how the founding fathers would have looked at #'s 1 & 2

[Okla-homey]

I don't know if its mid-life crisis or what, but sometimes I wonder why we all have to have so much "stuff." People with less "stuff" seem to be freer in a lot of ways...plus, its easier at moving time.

We buy bigger houses in order to hold more "stuff" Then, when we die, somebody has to get rid of all our "stuff."

[yermom]

"stuff" isn't nearly as bad as debt...

[Octavian]

Homey, you're sounding like a Leftist on America's Birthday :D

[Frozen Sooner]

See, the interesting thing is that the cultural paradigm is in flux for both of them and there's no telling where the new equilibrium point will be.

With abortion, it may just be that in 40 years the consensus will be that babies aren't people until day whatever and they can't figure out what all the yelling was about. Conversely, it may be that in 40 years it will be generally recognized that they're human at conception and they'll condemn us as mass murderers.

I dunno. Has anyone shown when cognition begins? I think in the future that's going to be where the line gets drawn, but that's just me.

[Okla-homey]

that was the first one i thought of...

i wonder how the founding fathers would have looked at #'s 1 & 2

Honestly, I don't think abortion was a big deal in the 18th century. People who didn't want their babies just went to some lady in the area who knew about ending pregnancies. It's really not addressed in the popular literature of the period.

The anti-abortion movement is pretty much a creature of the late 20th century. That said, the birth control movement was fought tooth and nail as early as the mid-19th.

Regarding homosexuality, I think if the person was discrete, no big deal either. The "out" thing would have been a shocker though.

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't know if its mid-life crisis or what, but sometimes I wonder why we all have to have so much "stuff." People with less "stuff" seem to be freer in a lot of ways...plus, its easier at moving time.

We buy bigger houses in order to hold more "stuff" Then, when we die, somebody has to get rid of all our "stuff."

I've been spending a ton of money over the last few years to buy stuff that won't take up as much room.

[Frozen Sooner]

Honestly, I don't think abortion was a big deal in the 18th century. People who didn't want their babies just went to some lady in the area who knew about ending pregnancies. It's really not addressed in the popular literature of the period.

The anti-abortion movement is pretty much a creature of the late 20th century. That said, the birth control movement was fought tooth and nail as early as the mid-19th.

Regarding homosexuality, I think if the person was discrete, no big deal either. The "out" thing would have been a shocker though.

I was thinking the same thing but this sounds more credible from you than from me. :D

I mean, we ARE talking about a bunch of dudes that walked around in waistcoats and wigs. ;)

I think homosexuality was much more prominent in the British and French upper classes than it was in the Americas, though.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, you're sounding like a Leftist on America's Birthday :D

I defy categorization. That's just me. Actually, I think most of us have areas of our lives in which we're conservative while having liberal leanings in others. Frankly, I wouldn't trust a guy who didn't.;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. Do you know how hard it is to find anyone who will admit to being a fiscal liberal but a social conservative?

[Octavian]

"stuff" isn't nearly as bad as debt...

its sorta funny the two are also related.

Our government borrows and spends because taxing and spending is not popular.

Of course most people like being taxed less. But as Homey states, very few save. We spend it. We get more stuff. We're surrounding ourselves w/ cool gadgets while the government goes deeper into debt.

Maybe thats not so funny after all.

[Okla-homey]

See, the interesting thing is that the cultural paradigm is in flux for both of them and there's no telling where the new equilibrium point will be.

With abortion, it may just be that in 40 years the consensus will be that babies aren't people until day whatever and they can't figure out what all the yelling was about. Conversely, it may be that in 40 years it will be generally recognized that they're human at conception and they'll condemn us as mass murderers.

I dunno. Has anyone shown when cognition begins? I think in the future that's going to be where the line gets drawn, but that's just me.

I think most Americans tend to draw the line at "viability" defined as the point when the child would have a decent chance at life outside the womb even if in a neonatal intensive care unit. Methinks that's at around 24 weeks. The controlling Supreme Court opinion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, NOT Roe v. Wade) allows states to ban abortion after viability. Before viability, they can't substantially hinder a woman's ability to have an abortion.

Problem is, pollsters ask "do you favor abortion?" and most folks say no. They don't ask, "is abortion okay if its before viability?" For the record, the horrid "partial-birth" abortion is almost always done post-viability.

[Okla-homey]

Heh. Do you know how hard it is to find anyone who will admit to being a fiscal liberal but a social conservative?

That would be me, maybe.

[Frozen Sooner]

You're all for high taxes and big spending?

[Frozen Sooner]

I think most Americans tend to draw the line at "viability" defined as the point when the child would have a decent chance at life outside the womb even if in a neonatal intensive care unit. Methinks that's at around 24 weeks. The controlling Supreme Court opinion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, NOT Roe v. Wade) allows states to ban abortion after viability. Before viability, they can't substantially hinder a woman's ability to have an abortion.

Oh, sure, that's where most people put the line now.

It just makes more sense to me to define something as human the minute it develops cognitive faculties-a simple awareness of being.

Though I guess that becomes problematic for those in a coma or whatnot.

[Okla-homey]

You're all for high taxes and big spending?

I guess if I had to be put in a notch, I'm for taxing just enough to pay for stuff we all need.

[Scott D]

I'm tired of being taxated without being justifiably represented....I'm ready to lead a militia to march on Washington ;)

[yermom]

all the DC plates say "Taxation Without Representation" on them, heh