Podcasts about jeffersonians

Clay interviews author and frequent guest Lindsay Chervinsky about her splendid new book on the John Adams administration: Making the Presidency: John Adams and the Precedents that Forged the Republic. In the second of two conversations about the book, Clay asks Lindsay to justify some of her unscrupulous attacks on the life and character of Thomas Jefferson. More to the point, why did John Adams fail to be re-elected for a second term in the year 1800? How much effect did the Constitution's 3/5 clause have on the outcome? What were Adams' greatest contributions to American political life? Why did George Washington betray his deepest principles during the Quasi War with France in 1798? Were the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 the reason the Jeffersonians won in 1800 or is it more complicated than that?

EPISODE 118 | Public Enemy Antifa Much has been made about Antifa. Is it a concept, socio-political stance, or an organized group? Do they oppose oppression by any means necessary, or are they simply hooligans who want to break things? Or, as Trump and others in the Maga mirror world have suggested, are they the quasi-military arm of some insidious plot to undermine the very foundations of western society? Are they, in fact, terrorists? So, let's trace what it is, where it comes from and who is part of it.  Like what we do? Then buy us a beer or three via our page on Buy Me a Coffee.  You can also SUBSCRIBE to this podcast. Review us here or on IMDb!  SECTIONS 02:05 - Bring the Noise - Antifaschistische Aktion (Antifa), skinhead culture, Anti-Racist Action (ARA), skins go left and right, White Aryan Resistance (WAR) the Heritage Front, Midwest Anti-Fascist Network, National Alliance, the NSM in Toledo, Ohio 11:30 - Shut 'em Down - The Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement (HARM) clash with the Illinois European Heritage Association, punch Nazis in the face, why the police protect them, police as legitimate targets, black bloc tactics, the New Sanctuary Movement, Milo Yiannopoulos goes to UC Berkeley 19:10 - Public Enemy No. 1 - Fake Antifa Twitter accounts spread #PunchWhiteWomen and #PunchANazi, Jebediah88 fakes The Antifa Manual, It's Going Down counters with Forming an Antifa Group: A Manual, Microchip sends petitions to Trump, the far-right goes all in of Antifa disinformation, molehill mountaineering, Lucian Wintrich worries about "Antifa supersoldiers" 25:39 - No Sympathy from the Devil - Louisiana police fall for "full list of antifa.docx", the American Identity Movement, CHiPs fall for "antifa buses", militias roam Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Jeffersonians in Sonora, California become "rooftop rednecks", a family has a scary camping trip in Forks, Washington; Trump tells more lies 33:09 - Welcome to the Terrordome - Nonsense about Jan. 6, the Center for Strategic and International Studies creates a database of U.S. terrorist acts, Willem van Spronsen attacks an Immigration center in Washington, Patriot Prayer guy Aaron Danielson is killed by Michael Reinoehl, who is then killed by police; Trump crushes hard on the U.S. Marshalls Music by Fanette Ronjat More Info EPISODE 61 | The Great Replacement - The White Wing Goes Mainstream EPISODE 76 | Klown Kar - The KKK Can KMA (World Is Weird 8) EPISODE 101 | Panic! at the Disco - The Jan. 6 Event (WIW 12) EPISODE 117 | Stay Awake – The Wokeness Issue Antifa.org It's Going Down website The Long History of Antifa in The Progressive Magazine Who Are Antifa, and Are They a Threat? at the Center for Strategic & International Studies Inside the Underground Anti-Racist Movement that Brings the Fight to White Supremacists on Mother Jones What is antifa? Is it a group or an idea, and what do supporters want? on CBS News The Philosophy of Antifa video on Philosophy Tube The Antifa Comic Book: 100 Years of Fascism and Antifa by Gord Hill Antifa: A New Political Resistance? in the Berkeley Political Review Seven things you need to know about Antifa on BBC 11 Suggested Actions Towards Anti-Racism at UC Davis Anti-Racism Toolkit at Georgetown University Being Antiracist at the National Museum of African American History & Culture Antifa articles on Snopes EU Anti-racism Action Plan 2020-2025 Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Antagonists of the Alt-Right video from The Daily Show Left Hook: A Brief History of Nazi Punching in America in Mother Jones Is Antifa Counterproductive? in The Intercept Thinking Strategically About Free Speech And Violence in Current Affairs Butterfly Attack: The Origins of the Fake Antifa Social Media Accounts on The Media Manipulation Casebook Twitter says fake "Antifa" account was run by white supremacists on CBS News From Alt Right to Alt Lite: Naming the Hate from the Anti-Defamation League A brief dictionary to help understand the US far right at Al Jazeera Prevalence of white supremacists in law enforcement demands drastic change on Reuters The Nov. 4 conspiracy theory about antifa has some scary historical echoes on Slate How the antifa conspiracy theory traveled from the fringe to the floor of Congress in USA Today Is This 'Antifa Manual' Real? on Snopes Forming An Antifa Group: A Manual on It's Going Down White House ‘antifa' petition written by pro-Trump troll on Politico Family reportedly harassed in Forks after being accused of being members of Antifa Federal officers won't be charged for killing Portland anti-fascist supporter, prosecutor states 'I Am Antifa': One Activist's Violent Death Became A Symbol For The Right And Left on NPR What we know about Portland shooting suspect Michael Reinoehl in The News Tribune Trump Cheered His Killing As ‘Retribution,' Now His Family Is Suing in Court in Rolling Stone Family of activist killed in alleged ‘spray of bullets' by US police files lawsuit on The Guardian The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States from the Center for Strategic & International Studies Pushed to Extremes: Domestic Terrorism amid Polarization and Protest from the Center for Strategic & International Studies Follow us on social: Facebook Twitter Other Podcasts by Derek DeWitt DIGITAL SIGNAGE DONE RIGHT - Winner of a 2022 Gold Quill Award, 2022 Gold MarCom Award, 2021 AVA Digital Award Gold, 2021 Silver Davey Award, 2020 Communicator Award of Excellence, and on numerous top 10 podcast lists.  PRAGUE TIMES - A city is more than just a location - it's a kaleidoscope of history, places, people and trends. This podcast looks at Prague, in the center of Europe, from a number of perspectives, including what it is now, what is has been and where it's going. It's Prague THEN, Prague NOW, Prague LATER 

A presentation from "Censorship and Official Lies: The End of Truth in America?" This event was co-hosted by the Mises Institute and the Ron Paul Institute, and recorded in Lake Jackson, Texas, on April 13, 2024.Full Written Text (Audio link is above): Over the past three years, the word “sedition” has again become popular among regime agents and their friends in the media. It's certainly not the first time the word has enjoyed a renaissance. It's frequently employed whenever the ruling class wishes us to become hysterical about various real and imagined enemies, both domestic and foreign.This time, the regime's paranoia about sedition was prompted by the Capitol Riot in January 2021, when we were told that Trump supporters nearly carried out a coup d'etat. Since then, regime operatives have frequently referred to Trump supporters and Trump himself as seditionists.Yet, out of the approximately 850 people charged with crimes of various sorts, only a very small number have been charged with anything even close to treason or insurrection. Rather, most charges are various forms of infractions related to vandalism and trespassing. However, because these charges have to do with the regime's sacred office buildings, the penalties are outrageously harsh compared to similar acts, were they to occur on private property.For a small handful of defendants, however—the ones the Justice Department has most enthusiastically targeted—the federal prosecutors have brought the charge of “seditious conspiracy.”Why not charges of treason, rebellion or insurrection? Well, if federal prosecutors though they could get a conviction for actual rebellion, insurrection, or treason for the January 6 riot, they would have brought those charges.But they didn't.What they did do is turn to seditious conspiracy, which is far easier to prove in court, and is—like all conspiracy charges in American law—essentially a thought crime and a speech crime. Seditious conspiracy is not actual sedition, or rebellion, or insurrection. That is, there is no overt act necessary, nor is it necessary that the alleged sedition or insurrection actually take place or be executed. What really matters is that two or more people said things that prosecutors could later claim were part of a conspiracy to do something that may or may not have ever happened.Moreover, the regime now routinely employs other types of conspiracy charges for prosecuting Americans supposedly guilty for various crimes against the state. At the moment, for example, Donald Trump faces three different conspiracy charges for saying that the 2020 election was illegitimate.As we shall see, purported crimes like seditious conspiracy are crimes based largely on things people have said. They are a type of speech crime. Now, some may ask how that is even possible if there is freedom of speech in this country.Contrary to what a naïve reading of the First Amendment might suggest, the federal government has never been especially keen on respecting the right to free speech.The federal government has long sought tools to get around the First amendment, and one of them is seditious conspiracy.Now, the term seditious conspiracy contains two pieces. There's the sedition part, and there is the conspiracy part. Let's explore both parts of this in a bit more detail to see what we can learn about this inventive way the regime has developed to silence those who question the legitimacy of the American state.Seditious Conspiracy Was Invented to Get Around Limitations on Treason Prosecutions From the very beginning, federal politicians have sought ways to create political crimes above and beyond the Constitution's very limited definition of treason. This began with the Sedition Act of 1798, and continued with the creation of the Seditious Conspiracy law in 1861, and carried on through to the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Smith Act of 1940, and a plethora of various types of “conspiracy” laws used to punish many different types of antiwar and dissident activities since then.All of these laws, involve restrictions on freedom of speech, and open up suspects to punishments for saying things.The reason why federal politicians believe they need extra sedition laws on top of treason can be found in the fact that the framers of the Constitution defined treason in very specific and limiting terms:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.Note the use of the word “only” to specify that the definition of treason shall not be construed as something more broad than what is in the text. As with much of what we now find in the Bill of Rights, this language stems from fears that the US federal government would indulge in some of the same abuses that had occurred under the English crown, especially in the days of the Stuart monarchs. Kings had often construed “treason” to mean acts, thoughts, and alleged conspiracies far beyond the act of actually taking up arms against the state.Treason could have been anything the king didn't like, and it how you end up with a situation in which St. Thomas More was executed for treason simply for refusing to say that the king was head of the church.By contrast, in the US Constitution, the only flexibility given to Congress is in determining the punishment for treason.Naturally, those who favored greater federal power chafed at these limitations and sought more federal laws that would punish alleged crimes against the state. It only took the Federalists ten years to come up with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which stated:That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States … or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, … from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.Note the references to “intent,” “counsel,” and “advise” as criminal acts so long as these types of speech are employed in a presumed effort to obstruct government officials. In the twentieth century, we will again see this type of language designed to ensnare Americans in so-called crimes of conspiracy.A great many Americans—some of whom who still took the radical liberalism of the revolutionary era seriously—saw the Sedition Act for what it was. A blatant assault on the rights of Americans, and an attack on freedom of speech. Thanks to the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 the Sedition Act was allowed to expire,Then, for sixty years, the United States government had no laws addressing sedition on the books. But the heart of the 1798 Sedition Act would be revived. As passed in July 1861, the new Seditious Conspiracy statute statedthat if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; or … prevent any person from accepting or holding any office, or trust, or place of confidence, under the United States. . . . Shall be guilty of a high crime.Note the crimes here are not overt acts like “overthrowing the government” of “delaying the execution of a law.” No, the crime here is conspiring to do something about it. That is, saying things about it to another person. That is what constitutes “conspiracy” here.Now, some people who have a rather benign view of the state might think, well, people shouldn't conspire to do bad things. Well, in real life, conspiracy as prosecuted, does not necessarily look like a group of bad guys getting together in a dark room and explaining how they're going to blow up some government building. That's Hollywood stuff.In real life, people can be found guilty of conspiring with people with whom they have never been in the same room, or with whom the "conspirator" expressed any actual violent intent.We'll return to this, and this is just something to keep in mind, whenever looking at government conspiracy laws.Given the timing of the seditious conspiracy legislation that I just read—i.e., in 1861, following the secession of several Southern states—it is assumed that the legislation originated to address alleged Confederate treason. This is not quite the case. The legislation did enjoy considerable support from those who were especially militant in their opposition to the Confederacy. However, Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio—who would later be exiled to the Confederacy for opposing Lincoln's war—supported the bill precisely because he thought it would help punish opponents of the fugitive slave laws.” Congress had initially become serious about punishing “conspiracies” not in response to Southern secession, but in response to John Brown's 1859 raid at Harper's Ferry.Thus, there was support for the idea in the South before the war. Soon thereafter, however, the Confederate secession and fears of rebellion helped enlarge the coalition in favor of a new sedition law. The new sedition law represented a significant expansion of the idea of “crimes against the state.” Senator Stephen Douglas, the bill's sponsor understood this perfectly well, statingYou must punish the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. … If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, [a reference to John Brown] why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to do the act?Others were more suspicious of expanding federal power in this way, however. Sen. Lazarus Powell and eight other Democrats presented a statement opposing the passage of the bill. Specifically, Powell and his allies believed the new seditious conspiracy law would be a de facto move in the direction of allowing the federal government to expand the definition of treason offered by the federal constitution. The statement read:The creation of an offense, resting in intention alone, without overt act, would render nugatory the provision last quoted, [i.e., the treason definition in the Constitution] and the door would be opened for those similar oppressions and cruelties which, under the excitement of political struggles, have so often disgraced the past history of the world.Powell is here describing what George Orwell would later call a “thoughtcrime.” This “crime” Powell tells us, rests “in intention alone, without overt act.” To anyone who actually valued freedom in 1861, this would set off major alarm bells.Even worse, Powell saw that the new legislation would provide to the federal government “the utmost latitude to prosecutions founded on personal enmity and political animosity and the suspicions as to intention which they inevitably engender.”Like so many political crimes invented by regimes, the legislation tends to grant unusual flexibility and discretion in prosecuting the state's perceived enemies. This opens up political dissidents to new kinds of prosecution.Such legislation COULD have been used against opponents of the fugitive slave acts, as well as against opponents of federal conscription during the war. After all, opponents of both the Civil War draft and the Vietnam War draft “conspired” to destroy government property—as with the heroic draft-card burnings of the Catonsville Nine, for example.It would be far harder to prove in court that such acts constituted treason, so sedition laws have paved to way for more frequently prosecuting various acts of resistance against the regime and its crimes.It's bad enough that federal policy makers schemed to insert into federal law new crimes against the state. But, as Powell correctly noted, the greater danger is in the part of the sedition law that enables prosecutions for conspiracy.What Is Conspiracy?So now we look at the other component of seditious conspiracy: the conspiracy part.Now conspiracy laws are used far more broadly than for political crimes. They are also used in the war on drugs and countless other federal legal crusades.Current federal conspiracy laws outlaw conspiracy to commit any other federal crime. Other provisions include conspiracy to commit some specific form of misconduct, ranging from civil rights violations to drug trafficking. Conspiracy is a separate offense under most of these statutes, regardless of whether the conspiracy accomplishes its objective.This latter point is an important distinction. As was explicit in the Sedition Act of 1798, so it is today: it is not necessary that the defendant charged with conspiracy harm anyone —i.e., that there be any actual victim. Indeed, conspiracy charges act as a way of charging individuals with crimes that might occur, but have not.Moreover, it is not even necessary in all cases that a "conspirator" take any affirmative steps toward completion of the alleged conspiracy. While it is true that some federal conspiracy statutes require at least one conspirator to take some affirmative step in furtherance of the scheme, It is also the case that Many have no such explicit overt act requirement. Even in those cases where some "affirmative step" or overt act take place, it is not necessary that the act be illegal. The "act" could be publicly stating an opinion or making a phone call.In a 2019 interview with the Mises Institute, Judge Andrew Napolitano highlighted his own problem with conspiracy charges:If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as conspiracy crimes because they are thought crimes and word crimes. But, at the present time in our history and in fact, for all of our history, regrettably, an agreement to commit a felony, agreement by two or more people or two or more entities to commit a felony and a step in furtherance of that agreement, constitutes an independent crime. ... In the world of freedom, where you and I and people reading this live, conspiracy is a phony crime. For 600 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, all accepted [that] crime contained an element of harm. Today, crime is whatever the government says it is.Napolitano is right, and the fact that crime is whatever the government says it is becomes apparent in one of the other key problems with conspiracy laws. Namely, as one legal commentator put it, “few things [are] left so doubtful in the criminal law, as the point at which a combination of several persons in a common object becomes illegal.”That is, at what point do a bunch of people talking about things become a criminal act. The law is very vague on this, and it is why it's not so easy to say “well, golly, I won't ever be prosecuted for conspiracy, because I don't plan to do anything illegal.But you are not safe because it is not clear in the law, at what point, statements encouraging legal activities become illegal —or statements encouraging legal activities, but without real criminal intent, become felonies.So, you can imagine yourself mouthing off unseriously and saying “we oughta burn down the offices of the department of education.” And then your friend texts back and says “I agree.” Well, congratulations, a prosecutor could easily use that exchange as a way of building a case for conspiracy against you.Would a single expression of an opinion against the regime be enough to convict? Probably not, but combined with other unrelated acts and legal activities such as a stated plan to visit Washington DC or buy a gun for unrelated activities, a prosecutor could, with enough convincing, tie them together in the minds of jurors to get a conviction for conspiracy.Legislators and the courts have never been able to provide any objective standard of when these disconnected, and often legal acts become crimes, and thus, prosecutors are afforded enormous leeway in stringing together a series of acts and claiming these constitute a conspiracy. For an indictment, the prosecutor merely need convince a grand jury that legal acts are really part of an illegal conspiracy. This is not difficult, as noted by Judge Solomon Wachtler when he cautioned that district attorneys could convince grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich."Not surprisingly, people who are actually concerned about regimes abusing their power have long opposed conspiracy prosecutions.For example, Clarence Darrow wrote on conspiracy prosecutions in 1932, concluding "It is a serious reflection on America that this wornout piece of tyranny, this dragnet for compassing the imprisonment and death of men whom the ruling class does not like, should find a home in our country."Darrow was at least partly joined in this opinion several years earlier by Judge Learned Hand who in 1925 described conspiracy charges as "that darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery" for the way it favors prosecutors over defendants.Crimes of Thought and Speech Vaguely DefinedConspiracy crimes have been a favorite of government prosecutors in going after political opponents historically.And, In the wake of the Vietnam War and the federal government's many attempts to prosecute antiwar protestors and activists for various crimes, many legal scholars took a closer look at the nature of conspiracy charges. Many were skeptical that conspiracy charges are either necessary or beneficial. The elastic and vague nature of conspiracy "crimes" means that, as legal scholar Thomas Emerson puts it, "the whole field of conspiracy law is filled with traps for the unwary and opportunities for the repressor."One of the more famous cases of conspiracy prosecutions running amok was the 1968 prosecution and trial of American pediatrician and antiwar activist Benjamin Spock. Spock and four others were charged with conspiring to aid, abet, and counsel draft resisters. That is, they were charged with saying things. Although prosecutors could never show the "conspirators" committed any illegal acts—or were ever even in the same room together—Spock and three of his "co-conspirators" were found guilty in federal court. The case was eventually set aside on appeal, but only on a legal technicality.Spock was able to avoid prison, but countless others have not been so lucky. Defendants who do not enjoy Spock's level of fame or wealth continue to find themselves locked in cages for saying things federal prosecutors don't like.The legal incoherence of the charges laid against Spock—and against antiwar activists in general—was covered in detail in Jessica Mitford's 1969 book The Trial of Dr. Spock, in which she writesThe law of conspiracy is so irrational, its implications so far removed from ordinary human experience or modes of thought, that like the Theory of Relativity it escapes just beyond the boundaries of the mind. One can dimly understand it while an expert is explaining it, but minutes later, it is not easy to tell it back. This elusive quality of conspiracy as a legal concept contributes to its deadliness as a prosecutor's tool and compounds the difficulties of defending against it.Mitford further draws upon Darrow to illustrate the absurdity of these prosecutions, pointing out that Darrow described conspiracy laws this way: if a boy steals a piece of candy, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. If two boys talk about stealing candy and do not, they are guilty of conspiracy—a felony.Again, we find that the foundation of conspiracy laws are thoughts and words, rather than any actual criminal acts. Or, as legal scholar Abraham Goldstein put it in 1959: "conspiracy doctrine comes closest to making a state of mind the occasion for preventive action against those who threaten society but who have come nowhere near carrying out the threat."This ability to treat this "state of mind" as real crime means, in the words of legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller:the government currently enjoys substantive and procedural advantages in conspiracy trials that are unparalleled anywhere else in the criminal law. Conspiracy convictions can be based on circumstantial evidence alone, and the government is allowed to introduce any evidence that "even remotely tends to establish the conspiracy charged.Conspiracy Prosecutions Are a Means of Quashing DissentConspiracy laws----including seditious conspiracy of course -- have long been used for a wide variety of alleged crimes.However, as the Dr. Spock case makes clear, conspiracy prosecutions are also a tool against those who protest government policies. More specifically, given that conspiracy "crimes" are essentially crimes of words and thoughts, conspiracy prosecutions have long been employed as a way of circumventing the First Amendment. As the editors of the Yale Law Journal put it in 1970:Throughout various periods of xenophobia, chauvinism, and collective paranoia in American history, conspiracy law has been one of the primary governmental tools employed to deter individuals from joining controversial political causes and groups.Or, put another way by the Journal, through conspiracy prosecutions, the "government seeks to regulate associations whose primary activity is expression." Naturally, citizens are more reluctant to engage in expressive activities with others that could later be characterized in court as some kind of conspiracy.So, if you and the other members of your gun club like to get a bit over-the-top in your comments about the crimes of America's political class, be careful. The federal informant in your midst may be taking notes.So it was the case with many government informants placed to investigate groups that opposed the War and the draft. Those who simply agreed with radical opinions could find themselves on the wrong end of a federal indictment.Yet, any strict interpretation of the First Amendment—which is the correct type of interpretation—would tell us that this ought to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Federal courts, however, have long disagreed, and some advocates of conspiracy might claim that speech encouraging a specific crime ought not be protected.Yet, in real-life conspiracy prosecutions, it is not easy to determine whether or not a "conspirator" is actually inciting a crime. As legal scholar David Filvaroff notes, the actual intent and effect of the speech in question in these cases is difficult to interpret. Thus, judgements about whether or not speech counts as protected speech is highly arbitrary:He writes:With a conspiracy to murder, one faces a potential crime of finite proportion and of near unmistakable content. There is little, if any, risk that either the defendants themselves, or the court or jury, will mistake the criminality of what the defendants propose to do. The probability of such a mistake both by the alleged conspirators and by the trier of fact is very high, however, in the case of conspiracy to incite.Back to our case about burning down the dept. of education. Was that casual comment a conspiracy to incite arson? Did the defendant intend it as such? This is largely up to the unilateral interpretation of the prosecutor.Most of the time, it is difficult for a "conspirator" to guess how others will interpret his words and what concrete actions might take place as a result.Under these circumstances, innocent people can end up serving years in prison for expressing their views about what government agents or government institutions ought to do or stop doing.The fact that legal acts can become illegal, and the fact that intent need not be proven makes conspiracy crimes, especially seditious conspiracy an excellent avenue for political prosecutions against perceived enemies of the state. It is not a coincidence that most of the charges against Donald Trump are conspiracy charges. They largely come down to Trump making statement both public and private questioning the validity of the election. Prosecutors have turned these opinions into a legal theory that Trump “incited” others to commit crimes. Thanks to conspiracy laws, it is not necessary that any actual crimes take place, or that any actual victims materialize, to get a guilty verdict.Thanks to his wealth, Trump has been able to mount a defense. Most people accused of various conspiracy laws are not so lucky, and countless Americans have endured financial ruin and prison thanks to the vast and abusive powers handed over to prosecutors by conspiracy laws.These are most dangerous when wielded against political opponents because, conspiracy laws essentially nullify the First Amendment and enable prosecutors to turn words into crimes.End All Political CrimesSo what is to be done? Obviously, conspiracy laws, including seditious conspiracy laws, ought to be abolished. All sedition laws are especially ripe for repeal given that the United States survived for decades without any federal political crimes other than treason, narrowly defined.Yet, if we are to win any meaningful victory against the state, we ought to repeal all political crimes, including treason, altogether.For one, political crimes like treason and sedition are simply unnecessary.It is already illegal to blow up buildings. It's especially illegal to do it with people inside the building, whether those people are government employees or not. It is already illegal to murder people, regardless of whether or not they represent the state. Destruction of property is illegal in every state.What political crimes like treason and sedition do is create a special class of people and institutions: government employees and government property, to send the message—via harsher penalties and punishments—that the destruction of government property, or the killing of government employees is worse than crimes against the mere taxpayers who pay all the bills.Political crimes are often subject to fewer regulations protecting the rights of the accused, and are often prosecuted by authorities more directly under the control of the central executive power. In the United States, the federal government has taken over control of most political crimes, centralizing enforcement and thus strengthening the central state. Certainly this has been the case with sedition laws.This scam that all modern regimes embrace exists not to keep the public safe. It exists for propagandistic purposes. These laws exist to send a message.Treason and sedition laws create the illusion that loyalty to the regime to which on presently pays taxes is morally important.Or, as historian Mark Cornwell puts it, regimes have long used crimes such as these “as a powerful moral instrument for managing allegiance.”Freedom of speech has always been a grave threat to this manipulation of allegiance, and its why sedition and conspiracy laws have so long been employed to weaponize speech against dissidents.The remedy lies in taking a page from those early Jeffersonians who abolished early sedition laws and refused to create new ones. The regime does not need or deserve a way around the First Amendment. The country does not need these “wornout pieces of tyranny” that are sedition and conspiracy laws. Abolish them now.

Who was George Washington? Why does he still matter in American life? Historian Kevin Gutzman, a professor and former chairman in the Department of History at Western Connecticut State University, returns to the podcast to share Washington's monumental legacy and why he is worthy of praise today. His latest book The Jeffersonians is available now. Learn more at kevingutzman.com.

On December 14, 2023, historian John Ragosta gave a lecture on Patrick Henry's final political battles. In a democracy, how do you disagree with government policy? What is a loyal opposition? In the 1790s, hyper-partisan political battles threatened to tear the new nation apart. Under the Sedition Act, a person criticizing the government could be jailed; opposition newspaper editors were targeted. In response, the Kentucky Resolutions, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, declared that Kentucky could proclaim federal laws unconstitutional and “nullify” them—secession, state versus state, and against the federal government, loomed. Newspapers warned of “Civil War!” George Washington begged Patrick Henry to come out of retirement, oppose these dangerous policies, and save the union. Though Henry had been the leading antifederalist, arguing against ratification of the Constitution, in 1799, he rebuked Jefferson and insisted that since “we the people” adopted the Constitution—even though Henry had opposed it—anyone contesting federal policy must seek reform “in a constitutional way.” Henry helped to define a loyal opposition. Unfortunately, that story was suppressed by Jeffersonians throughout the 19th century. John Ragosta discussed this story—recounted in For the People, For the Country: Patrick Henry's Final Political Battle—a story of how a democracy must work if it is to survive. John A. Ragosta is a historian at the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello. He is the author of Religious Freedom: Jefferson's Legacy, America's Creed and For the People, For the Country: Patrick Henry's Final Political Battle. This program, part of the VMHC's multi-year initiative to commemorate the 250th Anniversary of the U.S., is presented by the John Marshall Center for Constitutional History & Civics. The content and opinions expressed in these presentations are solely those of the speaker and not necessarily of the Virginia Museum of History & Culture.

On November 30, 1804, a significant event in the history of the United States judiciary unfolded when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase went on trial before the U.S. Senate. This marked a pivotal moment in American legal history, as Chase was the first U.S. Supreme Court Justice to be impeached. His impeachment was called for by the House of Representatives, led by the Jeffersonian Republicans, who accused him of "arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials.”The charges against Chase were politically motivated, stemming from his Federalist leanings and his conduct in politically sensitive trials. The Jeffersonians, led by President Thomas Jefferson, were seeking to reduce Federalist influence in the judiciary, and Chase's impeachment was part of this broader political struggle.Chase's trial in the Senate was a landmark event, emphasizing the tension between the judiciary and the other branches of government. It raised fundamental questions about judicial independence and the role of impeachment as a tool for addressing judicial misconduct. The trial proceedings were detailed in an 1805 publication, providing a thorough account of this important moment in U.S. legal history.Ultimately, in March 1805, Chase was acquitted by the Senate. His acquittal set an important precedent for the independence of the judiciary and limited the use of impeachment against judges for political purposes. The trial and acquittal of Samuel Chase remains a significant chapter in the story of American jurisprudence and the balance of powers in the U.S. government. In the intervening years, all impeachments of federal judges have been for misconduct, not a perceived incorrect outcome in any one or set of cases. In this way, the impeachment of Samuel Chase set the tone for what does and does not constitute a dereliction of duty in the federal judiciary. Henry Kissinger, who yesterday died at the age of 100, oversaw policies resulting in the deaths of millions during his tenure as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford. His strategies contributed to mass casualties in Cambodia, Chile, East Timor, Bangladesh, and the Kurdish regions. Particularly notorious were his actions in Cambodia, leading to widespread destruction and the subsequent Cambodian genocide, and in Chile, where he supported the coup that brought Pinochet to power. Despite these war crimes, or perhaps because of them, Kissinger was revered by many in the American ruling class. The fact that he outlived at least 3 million of his victims, without facing any significant consequences for his actions, raises profound questions about accountability and justice. His death should not overshadow the immense human suffering his policies caused.Henry Kissinger, War Criminal Beloved by America's Ruling Class, Finally DiesHenry Kissinger, Top U.S. Diplomat Responsible for Millions of Deaths, Dies at 100U.S. law firms are experiencing a second consecutive year of pay raises for associates, following Cravath, Swaine & Moore's announcement of increased salaries, leading other firms to follow suit. Major firms like Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; Baker McKenzie; and Dechert have introduced new salary scales, starting at $225,000 for first-year lawyers and up to $435,000 for senior associates. This move aligns with the base salary scale set by Cravath. Earlier, Milbank was the first to unveil higher salaries in 2023, but the recent hikes by other firms have matched or exceeded Milbank's for more junior and senior associates, respectively.This increase in salaries is notable because it comes at a time when there isn't high demand for associates, with many firms having excess capacity. Peter Zeughauser of Zeughauser Group highlighted the unusual nature of these raises, given the current market conditions. Some less profitable firms might choose not to match these new salary standards. This trend of increasing associate pay, which began last year, is adding stress to many law firms, and the recent raises are expected to exacerbate this situation.Despite slower growth in average revenues among the country's largest law firms, as reported by Wells Fargo, and a decline in mergers and acquisitions activity, the need to maintain competitive reputations and meet the perceived prestige requirement of matching salary scales compels many firms to increase pay. Firms like Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and Hogan Lovells also raised salaries on Wednesday. Furthermore, Proskauer Rose reportedly increased salaries too.These salary hikes are accompanied by year-end bonus announcements, with figures ranging from $15,000 to $115,000 based on class year. Additionally, some firms are offering extra bonuses based on work or hours billed. This trend reflects the evolving business dynamics within the legal industry, emphasizing the importance of maintaining competitive pay scales in a changing economic landscape.US law firm pay raises spread for second year in a row | ReutersCravath Announces Raises - Comes Over The Top Of Milbank Scale (For Some Associates) - Above the LawCravath Salary Increases Pressure Rivals Who Can't Afford MatchAn Illinois firearms retailer and the National Association for Gun Rights have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block Illinois' ban on assault-style rifles and large capacity magazines. This request follows a previous denial by the Supreme Court in May and comes after a lower court also rejected their bid for a preliminary injunction against the bans in both the state and the Chicago suburb of Naperville.The Illinois ban, known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act, was enacted in response to a 2022 mass shooting during an Independence Day parade in Highland Park, which resulted in seven deaths and numerous injuries. Signed into law in January by Governor J.B. Pritzker, the Act prohibits the sale and distribution of various high-powered semiautomatic firearms, including AK-47 and AR-15 rifles, and limits magazine capacities.The plaintiffs argue that these bans violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, which protects the right to "keep and bear" arms. However, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the bans, ruling that they are likely lawful. The court's reasoning was that the Second Amendment applies to weapons intended for individual self-defense, not military-grade weapons like assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.This legal challenge is part of several ongoing cases against the state's ban. The issue of assault-style rifles remains a divisive topic in the U.S., particularly in the context of addressing frequent mass shootings and firearms violence. The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, has historically expanded gun rights in landmark rulings, including a 2022 decision recognizing a constitutional right to publicly carry a handgun for self-defense and stipulating that gun restrictions must align with historical firearm regulation traditions.US Supreme Court is again asked to block Illinois assault weapons ban | ReutersTexas has urged a U.S. appeals court to reinstate a state law that bans sexually explicit books from public school libraries, arguing that this does not infringe on booksellers' free speech rights. The law, which was blocked by a federal judge, requires vendors to review books for sexual content before selling them to schools, a process that has been criticized for its subjectivity and potential for politically-driven censorship.During the hearing, Circuit Judges Don Willett and Dana Douglas of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals raised concerns about the broad definition of "sexually explicit" content and the challenges booksellers outside of Texas face in complying with the law's requirement to align with "current community standards of decency." The Texas Attorney General's Office, represented by Kateland Jackson, argued that Texas could be viewed as a single community despite its size and diversity.The law empowers the Texas Education Agency to review book ratings, barring explicit material from public schools and requiring their removal from libraries. Critics, including the plaintiffs represented by Laura Prather of Haynes and Boone, argue that the law compels speech from booksellers and imposes vague standards, essentially amounting to censorship.Republican Governor Greg Abbott has defended the law, stating it protects children by removing inappropriate material from schools. However, U.S. District Judge Alan Albright blocked the rating requirements in September, siding with the plaintiffs that the law violates the 1st Amendment.This Texas case is part of a broader trend in Republican-controlled states seeking to restrict school materials on sensitive topics like sex, LGBTQ issues, and race. The American Library Association reported a significant increase in attempts to censor library books in 2022, indicating a rising national debate over the availability of certain materials in public schools.Texas urges appeals court to revive public school book ban | ReutersThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a significant update to the Lead and Copper Rule, aiming to replace the "vast majority" of lead drinking water pipes in the United States within 10 years. This new proposal, expected to be finalized in 2024, marks a substantial increase from the Trump-era rule established in 2021, which reduced the annual replacement requirement to 3% from the original 7% set in 1991. Under the updated rule, water systems would need to replace at least 10% of their lead pipes annually, with the goal of achieving complete replacement nationwide in a decade.Radhika Fox, EPA's assistant administrator for the Office of Water, highlighted the flexibility of the proposal, allowing states to require communities to expedite replacements if possible. The proposal also mandates water systems to maintain updated lead pipe inventories, develop replacement plans, and track pipe materials.A significant aspect of the proposal is the reduction of the lead action level in drinking water from 15 to 10 micrograms per liter, requiring water utilities to notify the public when lead levels exceed this new threshold. This lowered action level is expected to bring substantial public health improvements by compelling more water systems to implement interim measures like corrosion control.The draft rule also emphasizes the need for better communication between drinking water systems and residents regarding plans to replace lead service lines. The public will have a 60-day period to comment on the proposal once it is published in the Federal Register.Funding for these replacements will be supported by the $15 billion allocated by Congress in the 2021 infrastructure law and the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The urgency of this proposal is underscored by the public health crisis highlighted by the Flint, Michigan incident in 2014, where lead contamination in drinking water led to widespread health issues.Despite the ambitious goals, challenges such as increasing costs, supply chain disruptions, and staffing shortages have been identified by the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) as barriers to the successful replacement of lead service lines. AMWA CEO Tom Dobbins emphasizes the need for the EPA to provide necessary resources and tools to overcome these barriers and achieve the goal of eliminating lead pipes.All Lead Water Pipes to be Replaced Under Proposed EPA Rule Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Dennis Rasmussen's new book, The Constitution's Penman: Gouverneur Morris and the Creation of America's Basic Charter (UP of Kansas, 2023), is a propulsive analysis of one of the key members of the Founding generation, Gouverneur Morris of New York and Pennsylvania. Morris is quite a character—from his reputation as a lady's man to his brilliant speeches at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen has pulled together archival research on Morris along with historical and political context to understand the Constitution's penman, since Morris was responsible for writing the draft of the document that would become the U.S. Constitution. Gouverneur Morris was a fascinating fellow—and his exploits were well known among his peers and colleagues. Morris, who had been educated at King's College (now Columbia), and had become a lawyer, made much of his fortune in land speculation. He was active during the Revolutionary War, especially in helping to manage payment and supplies to the troops fighting for the new country. Morris, like Jefferson and Adams, also represented the United States abroad, particularly in France during the revolutionary period there. His capacity to negotiate through the factions during the French Revolution was vital to the United States since he was able to protect both American citizens and U.S. interests in France. Morris's diplomatic and political expertise was in sharp relief during this period in France. As a Federalist Morris also served in the U.S. Senate, elected in 1800 as the Jeffersonians were coming into office. He was at Alexander Hamilton's deathbed with him after Hamilton's duel with Burr. But the central action of The Constitution's Penman is during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen lays out all of the ways that Morris had a hand in the creation of the American constitutional system, even though he was absent from the convention in the early going in June. The bulk of The Constitution's Penman focuses on each section of the governing structure of the U.S. national system and draws out Morris' role in shaping these parts of the American system. While some of Morris' ideas were more extreme than others—including his thinking on the form that the U.S. Senate should take—his ideas and influence are clear throughout the document itself. Rasmussen digs into Morris' speeches on the floor of the convention, his role in writing up the document—in which he pulled 23 articles into the seven articles that compose the United States Constitution—and his authorship of the Preamble itself. Rasmussen also focuses on Morris' strident denunciation of slavery at the Convention and elsewhere, becoming, on some level, the Framers' conscience on the issue of slavery. Dennis Rasmussen has written a book where the story truly dances off the page—and while Gouverneur Morris himself provides much of the content because of his cosmopolitan approach to life, his sharp wit and intelligence, and his interesting lifestyle—this is quite a compelling read. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Dennis Rasmussen's new book, The Constitution's Penman: Gouverneur Morris and the Creation of America's Basic Charter (UP of Kansas, 2023), is a propulsive analysis of one of the key members of the Founding generation, Gouverneur Morris of New York and Pennsylvania. Morris is quite a character—from his reputation as a lady's man to his brilliant speeches at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen has pulled together archival research on Morris along with historical and political context to understand the Constitution's penman, since Morris was responsible for writing the draft of the document that would become the U.S. Constitution. Gouverneur Morris was a fascinating fellow—and his exploits were well known among his peers and colleagues. Morris, who had been educated at King's College (now Columbia), and had become a lawyer, made much of his fortune in land speculation. He was active during the Revolutionary War, especially in helping to manage payment and supplies to the troops fighting for the new country. Morris, like Jefferson and Adams, also represented the United States abroad, particularly in France during the revolutionary period there. His capacity to negotiate through the factions during the French Revolution was vital to the United States since he was able to protect both American citizens and U.S. interests in France. Morris's diplomatic and political expertise was in sharp relief during this period in France. As a Federalist Morris also served in the U.S. Senate, elected in 1800 as the Jeffersonians were coming into office. He was at Alexander Hamilton's deathbed with him after Hamilton's duel with Burr. But the central action of The Constitution's Penman is during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen lays out all of the ways that Morris had a hand in the creation of the American constitutional system, even though he was absent from the convention in the early going in June. The bulk of The Constitution's Penman focuses on each section of the governing structure of the U.S. national system and draws out Morris' role in shaping these parts of the American system. While some of Morris' ideas were more extreme than others—including his thinking on the form that the U.S. Senate should take—his ideas and influence are clear throughout the document itself. Rasmussen digs into Morris' speeches on the floor of the convention, his role in writing up the document—in which he pulled 23 articles into the seven articles that compose the United States Constitution—and his authorship of the Preamble itself. Rasmussen also focuses on Morris' strident denunciation of slavery at the Convention and elsewhere, becoming, on some level, the Framers' conscience on the issue of slavery. Dennis Rasmussen has written a book where the story truly dances off the page—and while Gouverneur Morris himself provides much of the content because of his cosmopolitan approach to life, his sharp wit and intelligence, and his interesting lifestyle—this is quite a compelling read. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Dennis Rasmussen's new book, The Constitution's Penman: Gouverneur Morris and the Creation of America's Basic Charter (UP of Kansas, 2023), is a propulsive analysis of one of the key members of the Founding generation, Gouverneur Morris of New York and Pennsylvania. Morris is quite a character—from his reputation as a lady's man to his brilliant speeches at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen has pulled together archival research on Morris along with historical and political context to understand the Constitution's penman, since Morris was responsible for writing the draft of the document that would become the U.S. Constitution. Gouverneur Morris was a fascinating fellow—and his exploits were well known among his peers and colleagues. Morris, who had been educated at King's College (now Columbia), and had become a lawyer, made much of his fortune in land speculation. He was active during the Revolutionary War, especially in helping to manage payment and supplies to the troops fighting for the new country. Morris, like Jefferson and Adams, also represented the United States abroad, particularly in France during the revolutionary period there. His capacity to negotiate through the factions during the French Revolution was vital to the United States since he was able to protect both American citizens and U.S. interests in France. Morris's diplomatic and political expertise was in sharp relief during this period in France. As a Federalist Morris also served in the U.S. Senate, elected in 1800 as the Jeffersonians were coming into office. He was at Alexander Hamilton's deathbed with him after Hamilton's duel with Burr. But the central action of The Constitution's Penman is during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen lays out all of the ways that Morris had a hand in the creation of the American constitutional system, even though he was absent from the convention in the early going in June. The bulk of The Constitution's Penman focuses on each section of the governing structure of the U.S. national system and draws out Morris' role in shaping these parts of the American system. While some of Morris' ideas were more extreme than others—including his thinking on the form that the U.S. Senate should take—his ideas and influence are clear throughout the document itself. Rasmussen digs into Morris' speeches on the floor of the convention, his role in writing up the document—in which he pulled 23 articles into the seven articles that compose the United States Constitution—and his authorship of the Preamble itself. Rasmussen also focuses on Morris' strident denunciation of slavery at the Convention and elsewhere, becoming, on some level, the Framers' conscience on the issue of slavery. Dennis Rasmussen has written a book where the story truly dances off the page—and while Gouverneur Morris himself provides much of the content because of his cosmopolitan approach to life, his sharp wit and intelligence, and his interesting lifestyle—this is quite a compelling read. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Dennis Rasmussen's new book, The Constitution's Penman: Gouverneur Morris and the Creation of America's Basic Charter (UP of Kansas, 2023), is a propulsive analysis of one of the key members of the Founding generation, Gouverneur Morris of New York and Pennsylvania. Morris is quite a character—from his reputation as a lady's man to his brilliant speeches at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen has pulled together archival research on Morris along with historical and political context to understand the Constitution's penman, since Morris was responsible for writing the draft of the document that would become the U.S. Constitution. Gouverneur Morris was a fascinating fellow—and his exploits were well known among his peers and colleagues. Morris, who had been educated at King's College (now Columbia), and had become a lawyer, made much of his fortune in land speculation. He was active during the Revolutionary War, especially in helping to manage payment and supplies to the troops fighting for the new country. Morris, like Jefferson and Adams, also represented the United States abroad, particularly in France during the revolutionary period there. His capacity to negotiate through the factions during the French Revolution was vital to the United States since he was able to protect both American citizens and U.S. interests in France. Morris's diplomatic and political expertise was in sharp relief during this period in France. As a Federalist Morris also served in the U.S. Senate, elected in 1800 as the Jeffersonians were coming into office. He was at Alexander Hamilton's deathbed with him after Hamilton's duel with Burr. But the central action of The Constitution's Penman is during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen lays out all of the ways that Morris had a hand in the creation of the American constitutional system, even though he was absent from the convention in the early going in June. The bulk of The Constitution's Penman focuses on each section of the governing structure of the U.S. national system and draws out Morris' role in shaping these parts of the American system. While some of Morris' ideas were more extreme than others—including his thinking on the form that the U.S. Senate should take—his ideas and influence are clear throughout the document itself. Rasmussen digs into Morris' speeches on the floor of the convention, his role in writing up the document—in which he pulled 23 articles into the seven articles that compose the United States Constitution—and his authorship of the Preamble itself. Rasmussen also focuses on Morris' strident denunciation of slavery at the Convention and elsewhere, becoming, on some level, the Framers' conscience on the issue of slavery. Dennis Rasmussen has written a book where the story truly dances off the page—and while Gouverneur Morris himself provides much of the content because of his cosmopolitan approach to life, his sharp wit and intelligence, and his interesting lifestyle—this is quite a compelling read. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Dennis Rasmussen's new book, The Constitution's Penman: Gouverneur Morris and the Creation of America's Basic Charter (UP of Kansas, 2023), is a propulsive analysis of one of the key members of the Founding generation, Gouverneur Morris of New York and Pennsylvania. Morris is quite a character—from his reputation as a lady's man to his brilliant speeches at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen has pulled together archival research on Morris along with historical and political context to understand the Constitution's penman, since Morris was responsible for writing the draft of the document that would become the U.S. Constitution. Gouverneur Morris was a fascinating fellow—and his exploits were well known among his peers and colleagues. Morris, who had been educated at King's College (now Columbia), and had become a lawyer, made much of his fortune in land speculation. He was active during the Revolutionary War, especially in helping to manage payment and supplies to the troops fighting for the new country. Morris, like Jefferson and Adams, also represented the United States abroad, particularly in France during the revolutionary period there. His capacity to negotiate through the factions during the French Revolution was vital to the United States since he was able to protect both American citizens and U.S. interests in France. Morris's diplomatic and political expertise was in sharp relief during this period in France. As a Federalist Morris also served in the U.S. Senate, elected in 1800 as the Jeffersonians were coming into office. He was at Alexander Hamilton's deathbed with him after Hamilton's duel with Burr. But the central action of The Constitution's Penman is during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen lays out all of the ways that Morris had a hand in the creation of the American constitutional system, even though he was absent from the convention in the early going in June. The bulk of The Constitution's Penman focuses on each section of the governing structure of the U.S. national system and draws out Morris' role in shaping these parts of the American system. While some of Morris' ideas were more extreme than others—including his thinking on the form that the U.S. Senate should take—his ideas and influence are clear throughout the document itself. Rasmussen digs into Morris' speeches on the floor of the convention, his role in writing up the document—in which he pulled 23 articles into the seven articles that compose the United States Constitution—and his authorship of the Preamble itself. Rasmussen also focuses on Morris' strident denunciation of slavery at the Convention and elsewhere, becoming, on some level, the Framers' conscience on the issue of slavery. Dennis Rasmussen has written a book where the story truly dances off the page—and while Gouverneur Morris himself provides much of the content because of his cosmopolitan approach to life, his sharp wit and intelligence, and his interesting lifestyle—this is quite a compelling read. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Dennis Rasmussen's new book, The Constitution's Penman: Gouverneur Morris and the Creation of America's Basic Charter (UP of Kansas, 2023), is a propulsive analysis of one of the key members of the Founding generation, Gouverneur Morris of New York and Pennsylvania. Morris is quite a character—from his reputation as a lady's man to his brilliant speeches at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen has pulled together archival research on Morris along with historical and political context to understand the Constitution's penman, since Morris was responsible for writing the draft of the document that would become the U.S. Constitution. Gouverneur Morris was a fascinating fellow—and his exploits were well known among his peers and colleagues. Morris, who had been educated at King's College (now Columbia), and had become a lawyer, made much of his fortune in land speculation. He was active during the Revolutionary War, especially in helping to manage payment and supplies to the troops fighting for the new country. Morris, like Jefferson and Adams, also represented the United States abroad, particularly in France during the revolutionary period there. His capacity to negotiate through the factions during the French Revolution was vital to the United States since he was able to protect both American citizens and U.S. interests in France. Morris's diplomatic and political expertise was in sharp relief during this period in France. As a Federalist Morris also served in the U.S. Senate, elected in 1800 as the Jeffersonians were coming into office. He was at Alexander Hamilton's deathbed with him after Hamilton's duel with Burr. But the central action of The Constitution's Penman is during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen lays out all of the ways that Morris had a hand in the creation of the American constitutional system, even though he was absent from the convention in the early going in June. The bulk of The Constitution's Penman focuses on each section of the governing structure of the U.S. national system and draws out Morris' role in shaping these parts of the American system. While some of Morris' ideas were more extreme than others—including his thinking on the form that the U.S. Senate should take—his ideas and influence are clear throughout the document itself. Rasmussen digs into Morris' speeches on the floor of the convention, his role in writing up the document—in which he pulled 23 articles into the seven articles that compose the United States Constitution—and his authorship of the Preamble itself. Rasmussen also focuses on Morris' strident denunciation of slavery at the Convention and elsewhere, becoming, on some level, the Framers' conscience on the issue of slavery. Dennis Rasmussen has written a book where the story truly dances off the page—and while Gouverneur Morris himself provides much of the content because of his cosmopolitan approach to life, his sharp wit and intelligence, and his interesting lifestyle—this is quite a compelling read. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Dennis Rasmussen's new book, The Constitution's Penman: Gouverneur Morris and the Creation of America's Basic Charter (UP of Kansas, 2023), is a propulsive analysis of one of the key members of the Founding generation, Gouverneur Morris of New York and Pennsylvania. Morris is quite a character—from his reputation as a lady's man to his brilliant speeches at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen has pulled together archival research on Morris along with historical and political context to understand the Constitution's penman, since Morris was responsible for writing the draft of the document that would become the U.S. Constitution. Gouverneur Morris was a fascinating fellow—and his exploits were well known among his peers and colleagues. Morris, who had been educated at King's College (now Columbia), and had become a lawyer, made much of his fortune in land speculation. He was active during the Revolutionary War, especially in helping to manage payment and supplies to the troops fighting for the new country. Morris, like Jefferson and Adams, also represented the United States abroad, particularly in France during the revolutionary period there. His capacity to negotiate through the factions during the French Revolution was vital to the United States since he was able to protect both American citizens and U.S. interests in France. Morris's diplomatic and political expertise was in sharp relief during this period in France. As a Federalist Morris also served in the U.S. Senate, elected in 1800 as the Jeffersonians were coming into office. He was at Alexander Hamilton's deathbed with him after Hamilton's duel with Burr. But the central action of The Constitution's Penman is during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Rasmussen lays out all of the ways that Morris had a hand in the creation of the American constitutional system, even though he was absent from the convention in the early going in June. The bulk of The Constitution's Penman focuses on each section of the governing structure of the U.S. national system and draws out Morris' role in shaping these parts of the American system. While some of Morris' ideas were more extreme than others—including his thinking on the form that the U.S. Senate should take—his ideas and influence are clear throughout the document itself. Rasmussen digs into Morris' speeches on the floor of the convention, his role in writing up the document—in which he pulled 23 articles into the seven articles that compose the United States Constitution—and his authorship of the Preamble itself. Rasmussen also focuses on Morris' strident denunciation of slavery at the Convention and elsewhere, becoming, on some level, the Framers' conscience on the issue of slavery. Dennis Rasmussen has written a book where the story truly dances off the page—and while Gouverneur Morris himself provides much of the content because of his cosmopolitan approach to life, his sharp wit and intelligence, and his interesting lifestyle—this is quite a compelling read. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Historian Kevin Gutzman, a professor and former chairman in the Department of History at Western Connecticut State University, chronicles three titans of early American history: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe. These close political allies implemented the foreign policy, domestic and constitutional agenda of the opposition “Republican” Party, founded to enact what they viewed as the American Revolution's guiding principles. His latest book The Jeffersonians is available now. Learn more at kevingutzman.com.

Year(s) Discussed: 1801-1825 In this episode, I am joined by Kevin R C Gutzman, author of The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, to discuss this near quarter century where the three titular friends in succession served as chief executive. During the course of our conversation, in addition to comparing and contrasting the ideologies and approaches of these three presidents, we also discuss their interactions with one another as well as with other leading figures of the time. More information can be found on the website at https://www.presidenciespodcast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On July 19, 2023, historian and bestselling author, Kevin R. C. Gutzman, presented the 2023 Hazel and Fulton Chauncey Lecture. Before the consecutive two-term administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, there had only been one other trio of its type: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians is a complete chronicle of the men, known as The Virginia Dynasty, who served as president from 1801 to 1825. The three close political allies were tightly related: Jefferson and Madison were the closest of friends, and Monroe was Jefferson's former law student. Their achievements were many, including the founding of the opposition Republican Party in the 1790s, the Louisiana Purchase, and the call upon Congress in 1806 to use its constitutional power to ban the importation of enslaved people beginning on January 1, 1808. Gutzman's new book details a time in America when three presidents worked toward common goals to face challenges and strengthen our republic in a way we rarely see in American politics today. Kevin R. C. Gutzman is Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University and a faculty member at LibertyClassroom.com. He has his law degree from the University of Texas Law School and his Ph.D. in American history from the University of Virginia. His books include Thomas Jefferson—Revolutionary; James Madison and the Making of America; Virginia's American Revolution; Who Killed the Constitution? (with Thomas Woods); and The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. The content and opinions expressed in these presentations are solely those of the speaker and not necessarily of the Virginia Museum of History & Culture.

Heartland's Tim Benson is joined by Kevin R.C. Gutzman, Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University, to discuss his new book, The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. They discuss the foreign policy, domestic, and constitutional agenda of the Virginia Dynasty, their successes and failures, and what the presidential administrations of these three Founders meant for the history of the country. Get the book here: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250135452/thejeffersoniansShow Notes:Law & Liberty (AUDIO): “The Jeffersonian Republic” (AUDIO) https://lawliberty.org/podcast/the-jeffersonian-republic/U.S. National Archives: “The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe” (VIDEO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrUBnbZaZGYWall Street Journal: David O. Stewart – “‘The Jeffersonians' Review: Virginia Dynasty https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-jeffersonians-review-virginia-dynasty-11671057455Washington Free Beacon: Luke Thompson – “Reality Mugs a Founder” https://freebeacon.com/culture/reality-mugs-a-founder/

Thomas Jefferson called the election of 1800 a "revolution," meaning a return to the principles of 1776.  For the next twenty-four years, he and his close allies James Madison and James Monroe, would hold the office of President.  How well did they do?  Did their administrations fulfill the promise of the Revolution?  We discuss the Jeffersonians with Kevin Gutzman, gutzman.com/rofessor Kevin Gutzman, historian, Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University, and author of The Jeffersonians:  The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. 

Heartland's Tim Benson is joined by Kevin R.C. Gutzman, Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University, to discuss his new book, The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. They discuss the foreign policy, domestic, and constitutional agenda of the Virginia Dynasty, their successes and failures, and what the presidential administrations of these three Founders meant for the history of the country. Get the book here: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250135452/thejeffersoniansShow Notes:Law & Liberty (AUDIO): “The Jeffersonian Republic” (AUDIO) https://lawliberty.org/podcast/the-jeffersonian-republic/U.S. National Archives: “The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe” (VIDEO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrUBnbZaZGYWall Street Journal: David O. Stewart – “‘The Jeffersonians' Review: Virginia Dynasty https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-jeffersonians-review-virginia-dynasty-11671057455Washington Free Beacon: Luke Thompson – “Reality Mugs a Founder” https://freebeacon.com/culture/reality-mugs-a-founder/

In which Dr. Gutzman and I discuss his newest book, The Jeffersonians.

Today we host Jan van Eck for the second time on the Investors First Podcast. Jan is the CEO of VanEck, a global asset manager with over $57 billion in assets under management, including ETF's, mutual funds, SMA's, UCITS and more. Since our first recording with Jan in April 2020, Jan took the initiative to create a financial history course at VanEck during the pandemic. Jan is a brilliant investment professional with a passion for financial history. Beyond VanEck's work as a pioneer in the asset management business, we wanted to highlight the great work he is doing (beyond managing money) in this episode.    In today's episode, we speak about Jan's financial history curriculum, railroads as the first internet of the United States, the philosophical debate continuing between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians, the concentration of power with ETF's (and politicization of ESG), predicting the future and much more.    Our host today are Steve Curley, CFA & today's guest host is Chris Cannon, CFA (Chief Investment Officer, FirsTrust).   Please enjoy the episode. Follow us on Twitter & LinkedIn.

Dr. Kevin Gutzman returns to join Paul on the show this week to talk about his most recent book, "The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe". Dr. Gutzman always blows us away and makes us want to renroll in college so we can take his courses.

This week, Clay Jenkinson has a conversation with Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University and author of The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe held the presidency between 1800 and 1824. These three close friends and Virginia neighbors pursued a common set of public holidays. They managed to extinguish the Federalist Party and by the time Monroe began his second term, a Boston newspaper called it The Era of Good Feelings. Clay and Dr. Gutzman explore the friendship and political collaboration between Jefferson and the greatest of his proteges, James Madison, and the ways in which poor Mr. Madison had to talk Jefferson off the ledge of some of his wilder ideas about America.   Support the show by joining the 1776 Club or by donating to the Thomas Jefferson Hour, Inc. You can learn more about Clay's cultural tours and retreats at jeffersonhour.com/tours. Check out our merch. You can find Clay's books on our website, along with a list of his favorite books on Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and other topics. Thomas Jefferson is interpreted and portrayed by Clay S. Jenkinson.

Banks too big to fail are being bailed out by the general government. Who predicted this insanity? The Jeffersonians a long time ago. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

In This Episode:Kevin Gutzman, professor of History at Western Connecticut State University, joins the podcast to discuss the presidencies of Democratic-Republican presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroehow the states and sectionalism played an important role in the Early Republic, and why Jefferson and his successors emphasized the importance of state's rights and decentralized powerthe key events during the presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe that kick off Westward Expansion and Manifest DestinyTexts Mentioned:The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe by Kevin GutzmanJames Madison and the Making of America by Kevin GutzmanFirst Inaugural Address by Thomas JeffersonLetter from Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 15 February, 1791“Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank” by Alexander Hamilton“A Summary View of the Rights of British America” pamphlet by Thomas JeffersonJames Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention from June 18, 1787Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Robert Livingston, 18 April, 1802Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, 9 August, 1803Proposed Amendment to the Constitution Regarding Louisiana by James MadisonTrans-Continental Treaty of 1819 Monroe DoctrineCalhoun: American Heretic by Robert ElderDiary of John Quincy AdamsBecome a part of ISI:Become a MemberSupport ISIUpcoming ISI Events

Kevin Gutzman is Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University. He has published half a dozen books on Jefferson, Madison, and the Constitution. His latest book is The Jeffersonians. Cultural Debris Patreon - Support the podcast!   Cultural Debris logo by Rachael Sinclair Twitter | Instagram   The Jeffersonians, by Kevin Gutzman Kevin Gutzman Website | Twitter

Kevin Gutzman, author of the new book The Jeffersonians, talks Madison, Monroe, and the Constitution (and the key person who undermined it).

Before the consecutive two-term administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, there had only been one other trio of its type: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's THE JEFFERSONIANS: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe (St. Martin's Press) is a complete chronicle of the men, known as The Virginia Dynasty, who served as president from 1801 to 1825 and implemented the foreign policy, domestic, and constitutional agenda of the radical wing of the American Revolution, setting guideposts for later American liberals to follow. The three close political allies were tightly related: Jefferson and Madison were the closest of friends, and Monroe was Jefferson's former law student. Their achievements were many, including the founding of the opposition Republican Party in the 1790s; the Louisiana Purchase; and the call upon Congress in 1806 to use its constitutional power to ban slave imports beginning on January 1, 1808. Of course, not everything the Virginia Dynasty undertook was a success: Its chief failure might have been the ineptly planned and led War of 1812. In general, however, when Monroe rode off into the sunset in 1825, his passing and the end of The Virginia Dynasty were much lamented. THE JEFFERSONIANS details a time in America when three Presidents worked toward common goals to strengthen our Republic in a way we rarely see in American politics today. KEVIN R.C. GUTZMAN is Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University and a faculty member at LibertyClassroom.com. He has his law degree from the University of Texas Law School and his Ph.D. in American history from the University of Virginia. His books include Thomas Jefferson - Revolutionary; James Madison and the Making of America; Virginia's American Revolution; and, with Thomas Woods, Who Killed the Constitution --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/steve-richards/support

Kevin R. C. Gutzman joins Liberty Law Talk to discuss his latest book, The Jeffersonians.

Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians: Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, 1801-1825 (St. Martin's Press, 2022) marks the first chronicle of the only consecutive trio of two-term presidencies of the same political party in American history: Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.  Before the consecutive two-term administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, there had only been one other trio of its type: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians is a complete chronicle of the men, known as The Virginia Dynasty, who served as president from 1801 to 1825 and implemented the foreign policy, domestic, and constitutional agenda of the radical wing of the American Revolution, setting guideposts for later American liberals to follow. The three close political allies were tightly related: Jefferson and Madison were the closest of friends, and Monroe was Jefferson's former law student. Their achievements were many, including the founding of the opposition Republican Party in the 1790s; the Louisiana Purchase; and the call upon Congress in 1806 to use its constitutional power to ban slave imports beginning on January 1, 1808. Of course, not everything the Virginia Dynasty undertook was a success: Its chief failure might have been the ineptly planned and led War of 1812. In general, however, when Monroe rode off into the sunset in 1825, his passing and the end of The Virginia Dynasty were much lamented. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's new book details a time in America when three Presidents worked toward common goals to strengthen our Republic in a way we rarely see in American politics today. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians: Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, 1801-1825 (St. Martin's Press, 2022) marks the first chronicle of the only consecutive trio of two-term presidencies of the same political party in American history: Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.  Before the consecutive two-term administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, there had only been one other trio of its type: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians is a complete chronicle of the men, known as The Virginia Dynasty, who served as president from 1801 to 1825 and implemented the foreign policy, domestic, and constitutional agenda of the radical wing of the American Revolution, setting guideposts for later American liberals to follow. The three close political allies were tightly related: Jefferson and Madison were the closest of friends, and Monroe was Jefferson's former law student. Their achievements were many, including the founding of the opposition Republican Party in the 1790s; the Louisiana Purchase; and the call upon Congress in 1806 to use its constitutional power to ban slave imports beginning on January 1, 1808. Of course, not everything the Virginia Dynasty undertook was a success: Its chief failure might have been the ineptly planned and led War of 1812. In general, however, when Monroe rode off into the sunset in 1825, his passing and the end of The Virginia Dynasty were much lamented. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's new book details a time in America when three Presidents worked toward common goals to strengthen our Republic in a way we rarely see in American politics today. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians: Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, 1801-1825 (St. Martin's Press, 2022) marks the first chronicle of the only consecutive trio of two-term presidencies of the same political party in American history: Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.  Before the consecutive two-term administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, there had only been one other trio of its type: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians is a complete chronicle of the men, known as The Virginia Dynasty, who served as president from 1801 to 1825 and implemented the foreign policy, domestic, and constitutional agenda of the radical wing of the American Revolution, setting guideposts for later American liberals to follow. The three close political allies were tightly related: Jefferson and Madison were the closest of friends, and Monroe was Jefferson's former law student. Their achievements were many, including the founding of the opposition Republican Party in the 1790s; the Louisiana Purchase; and the call upon Congress in 1806 to use its constitutional power to ban slave imports beginning on January 1, 1808. Of course, not everything the Virginia Dynasty undertook was a success: Its chief failure might have been the ineptly planned and led War of 1812. In general, however, when Monroe rode off into the sunset in 1825, his passing and the end of The Virginia Dynasty were much lamented. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's new book details a time in America when three Presidents worked toward common goals to strengthen our Republic in a way we rarely see in American politics today. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe (St. Martin's Press, 2022) marks the first chronicle of the only consecutive trio of two-term presidencies of the same political party in American history: Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.  Before the consecutive two-term administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, there had only been one other trio of its type: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians is a complete chronicle of the men, known as The Virginia Dynasty, who served as president from 1801 to 1825 and implemented the foreign policy, domestic, and constitutional agenda of the radical wing of the American Revolution, setting guideposts for later American liberals to follow. The three close political allies were tightly related: Jefferson and Madison were the closest of friends, and Monroe was Jefferson's former law student. Their achievements were many, including the founding of the opposition Republican Party in the 1790s; the Louisiana Purchase; and the call upon Congress in 1806 to use its constitutional power to ban slave imports beginning on January 1, 1808. Of course, not everything the Virginia Dynasty undertook was a success: Its chief failure might have been the ineptly planned and led War of 1812. In general, however, when Monroe rode off into the sunset in 1825, his passing and the end of The Virginia Dynasty were much lamented. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's new book details a time in America when three Presidents worked toward common goals to strengthen our Republic in a way we rarely see in American politics today. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians: Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, 1801-1825 (St. Martin's Press, 2022) marks the first chronicle of the only consecutive trio of two-term presidencies of the same political party in American history: Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.  Before the consecutive two-term administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, there had only been one other trio of its type: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians is a complete chronicle of the men, known as The Virginia Dynasty, who served as president from 1801 to 1825 and implemented the foreign policy, domestic, and constitutional agenda of the radical wing of the American Revolution, setting guideposts for later American liberals to follow. The three close political allies were tightly related: Jefferson and Madison were the closest of friends, and Monroe was Jefferson's former law student. Their achievements were many, including the founding of the opposition Republican Party in the 1790s; the Louisiana Purchase; and the call upon Congress in 1806 to use its constitutional power to ban slave imports beginning on January 1, 1808. Of course, not everything the Virginia Dynasty undertook was a success: Its chief failure might have been the ineptly planned and led War of 1812. In general, however, when Monroe rode off into the sunset in 1825, his passing and the end of The Virginia Dynasty were much lamented. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's new book details a time in America when three Presidents worked toward common goals to strengthen our Republic in a way we rarely see in American politics today. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians: Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, 1801-1825 (St. Martin's Press, 2022) marks the first chronicle of the only consecutive trio of two-term presidencies of the same political party in American history: Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.  Before the consecutive two-term administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, there had only been one other trio of its type: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's The Jeffersonians is a complete chronicle of the men, known as The Virginia Dynasty, who served as president from 1801 to 1825 and implemented the foreign policy, domestic, and constitutional agenda of the radical wing of the American Revolution, setting guideposts for later American liberals to follow. The three close political allies were tightly related: Jefferson and Madison were the closest of friends, and Monroe was Jefferson's former law student. Their achievements were many, including the founding of the opposition Republican Party in the 1790s; the Louisiana Purchase; and the call upon Congress in 1806 to use its constitutional power to ban slave imports beginning on January 1, 1808. Of course, not everything the Virginia Dynasty undertook was a success: Its chief failure might have been the ineptly planned and led War of 1812. In general, however, when Monroe rode off into the sunset in 1825, his passing and the end of The Virginia Dynasty were much lamented. Kevin R. C. Gutzman's new book details a time in America when three Presidents worked toward common goals to strengthen our Republic in a way we rarely see in American politics today. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-south

Professor Kevin Gutzman discusses his new book The Jeffersonians. I ask him what we should think about those who want to cancel the legacy of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe due to their involvement in slavery. We also discuss the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase.  Consider this a special bonus episode for those interest in U.S. History. I also announce this year's BIG Xmas/New Year's book giveaway.

Before the consecutive two-term administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, there had only been one other trio of its type: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe.Kevin R. C. Gutzman's "The Jeffersonians" is a complete chronicle of the men, known as The Virginia Dynasty, who served as president from 1801 to 1825 and implemented the foreign policy, domestic, and constitutional agenda of the radical wing of the American Revolution, setting guideposts for later American liberals to follow.

Kevin Gutzman has a new book out (TODAY!) on "The Jeffersonians", the 24 year period when Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe occupied the executive office. This is a must read, so he and I sat down and discussed some of the major points. I don't do interviews, so you should check out this episode. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

Emma hosts Timothy Shenk, Co-Editor of Dissent and Assistant Professor of Modern U.S. History at George Washington University, to discuss his recent book Realigners: Partisan Hacks, Political Visionaries, and the Struggle to Rule American Democracy. First, Emma runs through updates on Sinema jumping right back into working with the Right, Kari Lake's lawsuit against Arizona, and polls revealing that the only thing the public wants less than a Trump candidacy, is a Biden one, before diving deeper into this weekend's Keystone Pipeline spill, and the complete joke that is letting corporations regulate themselves. Timothy Shenk then joins as he dives right into the inspiration he found in the failure of the US political system leading up to the election of Donald Trump, with the inability of either party to build a durable majority following the collapse of the New Deal Coalition in 1968. Next, Shenk jumps back to the 18th Century as he begins the walk through the major political realignment that set up this coalition-stifling system, first parsing through the aristocratic civil war between Federalists and Jeffersonians in the 1790s that set up the two-party system that centered the ability to sway the electorate (rather than the belief in an aristocracy naturally rising to the top), before moving forwards through the 1800s and Andrew Jackson's rallying of a populist coalition of his Jacksonian Democrats to bolster this political party machine. Next, Timothy and Emma explore the shift away from the Jacksonian Democrats as Martin Van Buren and the “Radical Republicans” began to take on the institution of slavery, and walk through the impact of changing party politics in the leadup to the Civil War, before shifting to the third realignment under Lincoln and beyond, as reconstruction's vision of a multiracial democracy began to fall apart. They then discuss the rise of FDR's New Deal Coalition in the 20th Century, as the Great Depression forced Americans to get over their lingering resentment from the Civil War, and for the first time centered class as the major political divide in the US, before they wrap up the interview by walking through the Right's various coalition attempts (largely shrouded in a populist veneer) from Phyllis Schlafly to Donald Trump and tackling the failure of Democrats to ever see a return of FDR's labor coalition. And in the Fun Half: Emma and the crew bask in the jeers Elon Musk received at Dave Chapelle's recent SF show, despite Dave's best efforts, Jesse James from the Hudson Valley dives into reactionaries and pop-culture race swaps, and Sunil from San Jose discusses various elements of Democrats' campaigning strategies. They also tackle Christian Walker refusing to back down to the weirdos on the Right that blame him for his father's loss, Zack from Missouri discusses the role of religion in various elements of our politics, and Serena from Tucson walks through serious tenants' rights issues going on in her complex, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Timothy's book here: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374138004/realigners Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: LiquidIV: Cooler weather makes it easier to miss signs of dehydration like overheating or perspiration, which means it's even more important to keep your body properly hydrated. Liquid I.V. contains 5 essential vitamins—more Vitamin C than an orange and as much potassium as a banana. Healthier than sugary sports drinks, there are no artificial flavors or preservatives and less sugar than an apple. Grab your favorite Liquid I.V. flavors nationwide at Walmart or you can get 25% off when you go to https://www.liquid-iv.com/ and use code MAJORITYREP at checkout. That's 25% off ANYTHING you order when you get better hydration today using promo code MAJORITYREP at https://www.liquid-iv.com/. Givewell: Many of us open our hearts and make donations during the holiday season. But when you donate, how can you feel confident that your donations are really making a big impact? GiveWell spends over 30,000 hours each year researching charitable organizations and only directs funding to a few of the HIGHEST-IMPACT, EVIDENCE-BACKED opportunities they've found.If you've never donated to GiveWell's recommended charities before, you can have your donation matched up to ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last. To claim your match, go to https://givewell.org/ and pick PODCAST and enter The Majority Report with Sam Seder at checkout. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Summary:Only twice in American history has there been three two-term presidencies in a row. The second time, the presidencies of Clinton, Bush, and Obama, featured presidents with little in common in terms of political principles. The first time, however, was a different story. Kevin Gutzman joins Tom to talk about his new book on the subject, The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.Guest bio:Kevin R. C. Gutzman is the New York Times best-selling author of five books, including Thomas Jefferson—Revolutionary: A Radical's Struggle to Remake America , a History Book Club Selection. Gutzman is Professor and former Chairman in the Department of History at Western Connecticut State University and a faculty member at LibertyClassroom.com . He holds a bachelor's degree (With Honors and With Special Honors in History), a master of public affairs degree, and a law degree from the University of Texas at Austin, as well as an MA and a PhD in American history from the University of Virginia.More info on his website at kevingutzman.com.Additional Reading:The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe (pre-order now!)Free Gifts from Tom:Back by popular demand! Download a free copy of Tom's e-book, An Anti-State Christmas, at antistatechristmas.com. Also available in paperback. A great stocking stuffer!Download a free copy of Tom's new e-book, It's the Fed, Stupid, at itsthefedstupid.com. It's also available in paperback here. It's priced at a pre-hyperinflation level so grab a few copiesfor friends if you can.It makes a great introduction to the government's most economically damaging institution for liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, and independents alike.Like the music on Tom Mullen Talks Freedom? You can hear more at tommullensings.com!

In his farewell address, President George Washington warned against political parties, particularly those based on geographic loyalties. However his own Cabinet fostered an intense rivalry between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jeffersonians formed the Democratic-Republican party, while the Hamiltonians formed the Federalist party. The Federalist Party would gradually fade into oblivion and the Democratic Party split into the Democrats and the National Republicans. The National Republicans become the Whig Party. The political and economic environment eventually kindles rivalries between the 2 parties and both evolve with respect to their beliefs and ideologies.

Howdy everyone, and thanks again for tuning in to The Jeffersonian Tradition. In today's episode, examine Alexander Hamilton's arguments against the Jeffersonians regarding repayment of the domestic War Bonds from The War for American Independence. If you want me to cover a topic or elaborate further on any given episode, then reach out to me through the show's private MeWe group, or by contacting me at the show email address, which is mrjeffersonian@outlook.com. If you find value in the podcast, please consider becoming a supporting listener. One-time contributions can be sent to the show's cash app, http://cash.app/$MrJeffersonian . Recurring contributions can be made through the Anchor supporting listener link. Thanks again for tuning in to The Jeffersonian Tradition! Sign up for MeWe today: https://mewe.com. Fuel the Jeffersonian Revolution today and buy your goldbacks here: Defy the Grid. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mr-jeffersonian/support

In this edition of THINGS HIDDEN, David Gornoski is joined by Andrei Znamenski, professor of history with an interest in anthropology. The two discuss the origin of socialism in Enlightenment-era Europe; how the religion of science came about; how socialism came to America with the help of Robert Owen; how the socialists interacted with Jeffersonians and Jacksonites; and more. Did the early socialists fail in America? Listen to the full interview to find out and more. Visit the website of A Neighbor's Choice here.

Modern American secessionist movements are commonly perceived as buffoonish or quixotic. Yet when their members take up arms after failing to achieve independence by electoral means—and openly state that they have no other recourse than violence—they cannot be so easily dismissed. James Pogue joins web editor Violet Lucca to discuss his reporting from the proposed State of Jefferson, a swath of counties in northern California and southern Oregon that wish to become the 51st state. Since the early 1940s, the Jeffersonians, united by a shared rural identity centered on mining and logging, have agitated for independence in search of better representation and infrastructure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, government health policies and a wave of new arrivals who bought second homes in the area, driving up rents, led many residents to conclude that their way of life was under threat. Their quest to recall three county board members was mocked in the media and treated as illegitimate, which only heightened their sense of persecution, leading many to view violence as the only alternative. Pogue and Lucca discuss how the situation in Redding reveals problems in American democracy, exacerbated by the end of local newspapers and the rise of social media. They also look towards the future: What's next for the State of Jefferson, and will their recall efforts become a model for others? Read Pogue's article here: https://harpers.org/archive/2022/04/notes-on-the-state-of-jefferson-secession-northern-california/ This episode was produced by Violet Lucca and Andrew Blevins.

The transformation of Jeffersonians into National Republicans continues under President James Madison. Following the Louisiana Purchase, the new administration sets its eyes on Florida and Canada for new American expansion. The result is the disastrous War of 1812 and the rise of a new central bank. Recommended Reading "The Feds Before the Fed" by Scott Trask — Mises.org/LP6_A "Our Oligarchs Can Thank James Madison" by Ryan McMaken — Mises.org/LP6_B "Why James Madison Hated Democracy" by Ryan McMaken — Mises.org/LP6_C Cronyism: Liberty versus Power in Early America, 1607–1849 by Patrick Newman — Mises.org/LP_Crony To subscribe to the Liberty vs. Power Podcast on your favorite platform, visit Mises.org/LvP.

The transformation of Jeffersonians into National Republicans continues under President James Madison. Following the Louisiana Purchase, the new administration sets its eyes on Florida and Canada for new American expansion. The result is the disastrous War of 1812 and the rise of a new central bank. Recommended Reading "The Feds Before the Fed" by Scott Trask — Mises.org/LP6_A "Our Oligarchs Can Thank James Madison" by Ryan McMaken — Mises.org/LP6_B "Why James Madison Hated Democracy" by Ryan McMaken — Mises.org/LP6_C Cronyism: Liberty versus Power in Early America, 1607–1849 by Patrick Newman — Mises.org/LP_Crony To subscribe to the Liberty vs. Power Podcast on your favorite platform, visit Mises.org/LvP.

The transformation of Jeffersonians into National Republicans continues under President James Madison. Following the Louisiana Purchase, the new administration sets its eyes on Florida and Canada for new American expansion. The result is the disastrous War of 1812 and the rise of a new central bank. Recommended Reading "The Feds Before the Fed" by Scott Trask — Mises.org/LP6_A "Our Oligarchs Can Thank James Madison" by Ryan McMaken — Mises.org/LP6_B "Why James Madison Hated Democracy" by Ryan McMaken — Mises.org/LP6_C Cronyism: Liberty versus Power in Early America, 1607–1849 by Patrick Newman — Mises.org/LP_Crony To subscribe to the Liberty vs. Power Podcast on your favorite platform, visit Mises.org/LvP.

The Revolution of 1800 removed the Hamiltonians from power, and in Jefferson's first term, America witnessed a major reduction of federal power. In his second term, however, an offer by French Emperor Napoleon to purchase the Louisiana territory would mark the fall of the Old Republicans. In this episode, Patrick and Tho look at how dreams of conquest in Canada, Spanish Florida, Mexico, and beyond have had tragic consequences for Americans' liberty. Recommended Reading "The Louisiana Purchase: Jefferson's Constitutional Crisis that Risked Dissolving the Union" by Dave Benner — Mises.org/LP5_A "Was Thomas Jefferson a Great President?" by Scott Trask — Mises.org/LP5_B Cronyism: Liberty versus Power in Early America, 1607–1849 by Patrick Newman — Mises.org/LP_Crony To subscribe to the Liberty vs. Power Podcast on your favorite platform, visit Mises.org/LvP.

The Revolution of 1800 removed the Hamiltonians from power, and in Jefferson's first term, America witnessed a major reduction of federal power. In his second term, however, an offer by French Emperor Napoleon to purchase the Louisiana territory would mark the fall of the Old Republicans. In this episode, Patrick and Tho look at how dreams of conquest in Canada, Spanish Florida, Mexico, and beyond have had tragic consequences for Americans' liberty. Recommended Reading "The Louisiana Purchase: Jefferson's Constitutional Crisis that Risked Dissolving the Union" by Dave Benner — Mises.org/LP5_A "Was Thomas Jefferson a Great President?" by Scott Trask — Mises.org/LP5_B Cronyism: Liberty versus Power in Early America, 1607–1849 by Patrick Newman — Mises.org/LP_Crony To subscribe to the Liberty vs. Power Podcast on your favorite platform, visit Mises.org/LvP.

The Revolution of 1800 removed the Hamiltonians from power, and in Jefferson's first term, America witnessed a major reduction of federal power. In his second term, however, an offer by French Emperor Napoleon to purchase the Louisiana territory would mark the fall of the Old Republicans. In this episode, Patrick and Tho look at how dreams of conquest in Canada, Spanish Florida, Mexico, and beyond have had tragic consequences for Americans' liberty. Recommended Reading "The Louisiana Purchase: Jefferson's Constitutional Crisis that Risked Dissolving the Union" by Dave Benner — Mises.org/LP5_A "Was Thomas Jefferson a Great President?" by Scott Trask — Mises.org/LP5_B Cronyism: Liberty versus Power in Early America, 1607–1849 by Patrick Newman — Mises.org/LP_Crony To subscribe to the Liberty vs. Power Podcast on your favorite platform, visit Mises.org/LvP.

In this episode of Liberty vs. Power, Patrick and Tho look at the success of the Jeffersonians following the corruption of Hamilton's Federalist Party. With the support of Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, the Jeffersonian Administration is able to slash the size of the federal bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the influence of Republican moderates — like James Madison — undermined a true restoration of old republican ideals. Recommended Reading "Jefferson's Philosophy" by Murray Rothbard — Mises.org/LP4_A "Jefferson as President: His Judicial Blunders" by Scott Trask — Mises.org/LP4_B Cronyism: Liberty versus Power in Early America, 1607–1849 by Patrick Newman — Mises.org/LP_Crony To subscribe to the Liberty vs. Power Podcast on your favorite platform, visit Mises.org/LvP.

In this episode of Liberty vs. Power, Patrick and Tho look at the success of the Jeffersonians following the corruption of Hamilton's Federalist Party. With the support of Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, the Jeffersonian Administration is able to slash the size of the federal bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the influence of Republican moderates — like James Madison — undermined a true restoration of old republican ideals. Recommended Reading "Jefferson's Philosophy" by Murray Rothbard — Mises.org/LP4_A "Jefferson as President: His Judicial Blunders" by Scott Trask — Mises.org/LP4_B Cronyism: Liberty versus Power in Early America, 1607–1849 by Patrick Newman — Mises.org/LP_Crony To subscribe to the Liberty vs. Power Podcast on your favorite platform, visit Mises.org/LvP.

In this episode of Liberty vs. Power, Patrick and Tho look at the success of the Jeffersonians following the corruption of Hamilton's Federalist Party. With the support of Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, the Jeffersonian Administration is able to slash the size of the federal bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the influence of Republican moderates — like James Madison — undermined a true restoration of old republican ideals. Recommended Reading "Jefferson's Philosophy" by Murray Rothbard — Mises.org/LP4_A "Jefferson as President: His Judicial Blunders" by Scott Trask — Mises.org/LP4_B Cronyism: Liberty versus Power in Early America, 1607–1849 by Patrick Newman — Mises.org/LP_Crony To subscribe to the Liberty vs. Power Podcast on your favorite platform, visit Mises.org/LvP.

Howdy everyone, and thanks again for tuning in to The Jeffersonian Tradition. In today's episode, we begin our study of a man who refused to be reconstructed: RL Dabney. This will be a broader set of episodes that seek to understand why Jeffersonians were suspicious even of private concentrations of wealth and arbitrary power. If you want me to cover a topic or elaborate further on any given episode, then reach out to me through the show's private MeWe group, or by contacting me at the show email address, which is mrjeffersonian@outlook.com. If you find value in the podcast, please consider becoming a supporting listener. One-time contributions can be sent to the show's cash app, http://cash.app/$MrJeffersonian. Recurring contributions can be made through the Anchor supporting listener link. Thanks again for tuning in to The Jeffersonian Tradition! Sign up for MeWe today: https://mewe.com. Fuel the Jeffersonian Revolution today and buy your goldbacks here: Defy the Grid. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mr-jeffersonian/support

Title: Grover Cleveland – The Last of the JeffersoniansDescription: We are joined today by independent historian and author Ryan S. Walters again to talk about the surprisingly complicated and fascinating presidency of Grover Cleveland. Grover Cleveland's presidency was during a time of great transition in the office of the presidency and the United States. Ryan S. Walters is the author of The Last Jeffersonian: Grover Cleveland and the Path to Restoring the Republic and Grover Cleveland: The Last Jeffersonian President.Learn More About Our Guest:Ryan S. WaltersRyanswalters.netYou can learn more about Beyond the Big Screen and subscribe at all these great places:http://atozhistorypage.com/Click to Subscribe:https://www.spreaker.com/show/4926576/episodes/feedemail: steve@atozhistorypage.comwww.beyondthebigscreen.comhttps://www.patreon.com/historyofthepapacyOn Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/groups/atozhistorypagehttps://www.facebook.com/HistoryOfThePapacyPodcasthttps://twitter.com/atozhistoryMusic Provided by:"Crossing the Chasm" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Howdy everyone, and thanks again for tuning in to The Jeffersonian Tradition. In today's episode, we begin our study with arguably the most principled Jeffersonian of the Jeffersonians, Spencer Roane. If you want me to cover a topic or elaborate further on any given episode, then reach out to me through the show's private MeWe group, or by contacting me at the show email address, which is mrjeffersonian@outlook.com. If you find value in the podcast, please consider becoming a supporting listener. One-time contributions can be sent to the show's cash app, http://cash.app/$MrJeffersonian. Recurring contributions can be made through the Anchor supporting listener link. Thanks again for tuning in to The Jeffersonian Tradition! Sign up for MeWe today: https://mewe.com. Support monetary freedom today, and buy your goldbacks here: Defy the Grid Check out this book by David Johnson on Spencer Roane: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B08M2Z4KC3&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_99MBJW1M06EAW214H2D5 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mr-jeffersonian/support

We speak with President Jefferson about his "Circular to the Heads of Departments," a memo he wrote dated November 6, 1801 which provides insight into Jefferson's governing style. He refers to his cabinet as one of the most harmonious in history, and he closes his letter by writing, "If I had the Universe to choose from, I could not change one of my associates to my better satisfaction." You can order Clay's new book at Amazon, Target, Barnes and Noble, or by contacting your independent bookstore. The Language of Cottonwoods is out now through Koehler Books. Mentioned on this episode: “Circular to the Heads of Departments”, Jeffersonians in Power: The Rhetoric of Opposition Meets the Realities of Governing Find this episode, along with recommended reading, on the blog. Support the show by joining the 1776 Club or by donating to the Thomas Jefferson Hour, Inc. You can learn more about Clay's cultural tours and retreats at jeffersonhour.com/tours. Check out our new merch. You can find Clay's publications on our website, along with a list of his favorite books on Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and other topics. Thomas Jefferson is interpreted by Clay S. Jenkinson.

The new Georgia voter law sparked a furious response from several international corporations including Coca-Cola, Delta, and Major League Baseball. The hypocrisy of these "corporate persons" is not debatable, but the real problem in America is the judicial creation of "corporate persons" and the power massive corporations have on the American public. The Jeffersonians recognized the problem in the 19th century and beyond. We are living in a modern corporate nightmare. I discuss the root of the problem with the corporate reaction to Georgia in this episode of The Brion McClanahan Show. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

https://www.libertyroundtable.com/ Liberty RoundTable Radio Show Hour 1 – 10/14/2019 * Guest: Lowell Nelson - CampaignForLiberty.org - RonPaulInstitute.org. * Tesla is “petitioning” the government to allow him to eliminate rear-view and exterior mirrors from new cars – in favor of in-car displays fed images by cameras. * Because of the collusion between big industry and big government, consumers are hurt. * Private Companies Partnering with Cops to Track Your License Plate. * Three major automatic license plate reader (ALPR) companies have created a mind-boggling database of 14 billion license plates that allows law enforcement to track anyone in real-time. * The Digital Recognition Network (DRN) has a database of over 8 billion license plates and boasts about sending customers (law enforcement) live vehicle location alerts. * We must stop gov. and corporate unlimited access to license plate data! * Deep State is Pushing to Kill the 4th Amendment Permanently - Ron Paul. * US Military Drops a Bomb every 12 Minutes - Lee Camp. * "We live in a state of global perpetual war, and we never feel it. * St. George Tucker. * Tucker furnished Jeffersonians with the “compact theory” of the Constitution. * "Under this model, each sovereign, independent state is contractually and consensually committed to confederacy, and the federal government possesses only limited and delegated powers. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

Nicole Penn joins the podcast to discuss Thomas Jefferson, a man of endless contradictions. The post We are all Jeffersonians. We are all anti-Jeffersonians. appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Matt is here with a solo episode where he tackles a philosophical tension that runs through much socialist thinking and posting: how can socialism be both individually liberating while also relying on collective control and ownership? This winding (don't call it rambling) episode covers many topics including Distributism, Jeffersonians, Rawls's property-owning democracy, and various socialist tendencies. And most importantly, it offers a real solution to the conundrum.

Join host, Greg Carlwood, of The Higherside Chats podcast as he talks fascism with returning guest, Shamangineer. As the seemingly never ending battle for control wages between extreme paradigms, and the 'punch a Nazi' and 'snowflake' meme-slinging serves only to muddy the already landmine infested landscape ahead, the battle for absolute authoritarianism has only just begun. With both the left and right chipping away at democratic principles with the help of totalitarian government, cultural constructs and corporations, remaining battle ready and able to recognize signs of fascism seeping into society is becoming increasingly more important. But, recognizing the signs can be harder than catching Pokemon, and having a historical context behind the fascist forces at work can serve as the strongest weapon in this war on personal sovereignty. Fortunately, today's returning guest, Shamangineer, has been following the threads of fascism throughout history, and today he joins The Higherside to weave it all together. 2:00 Diving right into it, Shamangineer begins by discussing fascism in broad strokes by providing some historical context. Much like the broken two-party system of today, the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians of the 18th century found themselves on opposing ends of the spectrum, each with drastically different ideas about the role of the federal government. While each was to take place under a democratic context, by the will of the people through the ballot box, in a hierarchical bureaucracy, Federalism and big government was experiencing an uptick in support among voters. On the back of the Boston Tea Party, in this post-Revolution landscape, it was understood that the role of corporations was to function as creations of the state, which were founded to accomplish certain objectives, and prohibited from participating in politics. Shamagineer walks through the protections put into place, limiting the influence of corporations like the East India Tea Company, and the gradual erosion of these beginning during the Reconstruction Era. 14:00 Greg and Shamangineer continue with their conversation about fascism throughout our history, the saga of Smedley Butler and Gerald MacGuire, the attempted coup by the American Liberty League, and Prescott Bush's involvement. Connected to both the Hamburg American Line and UBS Bank, Prescott Bush was able to forward the fascist agenda of the major corporations that choke the life from the American middle class, by funding Nazis during WWII and helping their spies infiltrate US soil. Shamangineer goes on to detail the Nazi influence in US institutions such as the O.S.S. and C.I.A. 26:00 With this recent episode being a divergence from their elemental series, Greg and Shamangineer discuss the importance and necessity for an honest examination of fascism given our current political climate. Between accusations of fake news and tiki-torch wielding Nazi's overrunning the streets the clash of ideologies and polarization has helped distract people from the encroachment of fascism from both the left and right. Greg and Shamangineer pivot Carol Rosin, Werner Von Braun, Operation Gladio, and electrogravitic crafts. 36:00 Shamangineer elaborates on the aspects of Operation Gladio, such as the spread of radical Islamic terror in the West. He discusses revelations from the documentary "9/11, Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus", Osama bin Laden's Nazi connection, and the ties between German fascists and Arab extremists through the Muslim Brotherhood. Leveling the playing field, Greg and Shamangineer also discuss the fascism of Israel, their role in state sponsored terror, the fight for 'The Holy Land', and Hitler's bargain with Zionists. 42:00 Greg and Shamangineer move on to talk about Wilhelm Reich, a contemporary of Freud, he wrote several books about the psychology of fascism, including "The Mass Psychology of Fascism". Having a knack for catching the attention of autho...

Reformist minded and very far from the Hartford Wits, to be sure, but the Jeffersonians were still fundamentally the agents of a different sort of American elite. While these white male mechanics and yeoman farmers made for a more democratic ruling elite than the great colonial landholders and office-mongers, they remained relatively content with driving slaves, dominating women and children, and using the power of government to support their own interests—local and relatively liberal as they may have been.“Anarchiad, a New England Poem” (1786-7)“The Design of Anarchy: ‘The Anarchiad,’ 1786-1787” by J. K. Van Dover, Early American Literature 24, No. 3 (1989): 237-247.Banning, Lance. The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1978.Parrington, Vernon Louis. Main Currents in American Thought: An Interpretation of American Literature from the Beginnings to 1920, Vols. 1-3. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. 1958 (Original Printing: 1927). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington's administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain's rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America's reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment's free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington's administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain's rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America's reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment's free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington's administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain's rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America's reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment's free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington’s administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain’s rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America’s reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment’s free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington’s administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain’s rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America’s reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment’s free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington’s administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain’s rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America’s reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment’s free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington’s administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain’s rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America’s reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment’s free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington’s administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain’s rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America’s reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment’s free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The key division in American politics and economics right now isn’t between liberals and conservatives, says Michael Lind. It’s between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. What does this division mean now, what is its history, and how did America’s economy get into the current mess? Lind, a public intellectual, co-founder of the New America Foundation, and author of Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States, tries to answer these questions.

Immigration ruling an opportunity for Democrats. Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians still arguing. And things are worse than they look. Raul Grijalva Mitt Romney says Arizona’s discredited immigration restrictions was model legislation. But now that the Supreme Court thinks otherwise, what is Romney’s backup plan? Nothing, says Congressman Raul Grijalva. He says the Supreme Court decision gives Democrats an opportunity to force Republicans into truly bipartisan moves to reform federal immigration policy. http://grijalva.house.gov/ Michael Lind Historian Michael Lind goes back into American history and explains how Americans contradict themselves. The political fault line is not really liberal versus conservative but Jeffersonian versus Hamiltonian. He says Americans are Jeffersonian in belief but Hamiltonian in practice. http://newamerica.net/user/91 Norm Ornstein Bill Press talks with political scientist Norm Ornstein about the historic level of vitriol and lying – mostly by Republicans – that is now paralyzing national problem-solving. http://www.billpressshow.com/ http://www.aei.org/scholar/norman-j-ornstein/