I can’t speak on Washington and Adams in regards to their dislike of NYC, but relevantly, Jefferson had a unique understanding of freedom. To him, freedom wasn’t a list of established rights protected by government. He was a major opponent of government and would likely agree to many anarchist ideals of today. Most founding fathers would likely agree that when they were discussing freedom, they meant freedom from England and monarchies. Jefferson was on another level though; he was extreme with the idea of freedom. Freedom was the ability for someone to live exactly how they pleased without any outside influence, both physically and mentally. It was a natural right for every single person to do whatever they pleased with their life as long as it didn’t affect anyone else’s ability to live their life as they pleased. Governments, churches, large companies, etc. were in strict opposition to this ideal of freedom. In practical terms, that means he had a vision of the USA as a land of self-sustaining farmers so that no one would be dependent on others to live or think. He was truly revolutionary in that sense. To him, urban areas were rife with corruption of not only politics and economy, but also ideas. He had a disdain for anything centralized: cities, government, churches, etc. He was the main advocate for the separation of church and state. Fun fact! Last I checked, when someone swears on a Bible in an American court, they swear on a Jeffersonian Bible which has all supernatural phenomenon omitted.
I think that the most influential American in the history of the USA is Jefferson, followed by Adams and then Washington. Jefferson was extreme in his vision of freedom, and those ideals are entrenched in the US Constitution. However, he was somewhat hypocritical with how he lived his life considering he became a president, owned slaves, and even let Louisiana continue slavery. In contrast, Adams was a principled person that truly held to his values and beliefs. He advocated for abolition of slavery and didn’t own slaves. He even defended British troops that killed Americans because he was steadfast in his belief that valid legal trials not only protect citizens from government overreach, but that is the only way to achieve legal truth. Washington is famous and popular, but he didn’t have the impact on foundational ideals that the other two had. Washington was more concrete and likeable. He was a practical leader. Shit…I’m digressing. Back to Tommy. If Jefferson wasn’t involved in the foundation of the USA, I think the country would have turned out to be quite different from what it is today…maybe even unrecognizable. I’m not as confident that would have been the case for Adams and Washington.
And a notable mention for Abigail Adams, whose constant writing back and forth with John appears to have played a major role in developing his own views. Were women allowed into politics during that time, she would have made a fine member of the early US government.
In practical terms, that means he had a vision of the USA as a land of self-sustaining farmers so that no one would be dependent on others to live or think.
I’m going to fire from the hip here because I’m not a scholar.
First, that is a completely a-historical, unnatural idea of how people and societies work. Humans are social groups and have formed cities since the dawn of history. It’s nonsense and sounds like a personal hell for me.
Cities are where stuff happens. A country that’s just self sustaining farmers living in isolation is not going to produce a lot. Not a lot of culture, not a lot of science.
Like, I don’t think we’d even have writing if cities hadn’t been developed.
I can’t speak on Washington and Adams in regards to their dislike of NYC, but relevantly, Jefferson had a unique understanding of freedom. To him, freedom wasn’t a list of established rights protected by government. He was a major opponent of government and would likely agree to many anarchist ideals of today. Most founding fathers would likely agree that when they were discussing freedom, they meant freedom from England and monarchies. Jefferson was on another level though; he was extreme with the idea of freedom. Freedom was the ability for someone to live exactly how they pleased without any outside influence, both physically and mentally. It was a natural right for every single person to do whatever they pleased with their life as long as it didn’t affect anyone else’s ability to live their life as they pleased. Governments, churches, large companies, etc. were in strict opposition to this ideal of freedom. In practical terms, that means he had a vision of the USA as a land of self-sustaining farmers so that no one would be dependent on others to live or think. He was truly revolutionary in that sense. To him, urban areas were rife with corruption of not only politics and economy, but also ideas. He had a disdain for anything centralized: cities, government, churches, etc. He was the main advocate for the separation of church and state. Fun fact! Last I checked, when someone swears on a Bible in an American court, they swear on a Jeffersonian Bible which has all supernatural phenomenon omitted.
I think that the most influential American in the history of the USA is Jefferson, followed by Adams and then Washington. Jefferson was extreme in his vision of freedom, and those ideals are entrenched in the US Constitution. However, he was somewhat hypocritical with how he lived his life considering he became a president, owned slaves, and even let Louisiana continue slavery. In contrast, Adams was a principled person that truly held to his values and beliefs. He advocated for abolition of slavery and didn’t own slaves. He even defended British troops that killed Americans because he was steadfast in his belief that valid legal trials not only protect citizens from government overreach, but that is the only way to achieve legal truth. Washington is famous and popular, but he didn’t have the impact on foundational ideals that the other two had. Washington was more concrete and likeable. He was a practical leader. Shit…I’m digressing. Back to Tommy. If Jefferson wasn’t involved in the foundation of the USA, I think the country would have turned out to be quite different from what it is today…maybe even unrecognizable. I’m not as confident that would have been the case for Adams and Washington.
And a notable mention for Abigail Adams, whose constant writing back and forth with John appears to have played a major role in developing his own views. Were women allowed into politics during that time, she would have made a fine member of the early US government.
There’s an extremely good Alternate History Hub video that just came out about, what if John Adams died before he became 2nd president?
It’s REALLY good and goes deep into the divide between Jefferson and Hamilton. Awesome video from an awesome channel.
Do you know what it’s called? I couldn’t find it through search or in their US playlist.
Here you go! My fault, I forgot the proper title.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BmM2_x9I4JI
I’m going to fire from the hip here because I’m not a scholar.
First, that is a completely a-historical, unnatural idea of how people and societies work. Humans are social groups and have formed cities since the dawn of history. It’s nonsense and sounds like a personal hell for me.
Cities are where stuff happens. A country that’s just self sustaining farmers living in isolation is not going to produce a lot. Not a lot of culture, not a lot of science.
Like, I don’t think we’d even have writing if cities hadn’t been developed.