I want to know the public's opinion about this one.
2007-02-18 10:35:14 · 8 answers · asked by Matt 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I have studied Jefferson most of my life and this question is an easy one for a Jefferson scholar:
He would select liberty over security. Jefferson reduced the military more than any president. It was because of Jefferson's reduction of the military that we were in such terrible shape to fight the British in 1812.
Jefferson was a staunch believer in liberty and freedom. He once stated that he would rather a free press than a government.
2007-02-18 13:30:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Consider the defining moment in Jefferson's life.
In order to gain liberty from a tyranical colonial power, he signed his name to the Declaration of Independence, virtually guaranteeing that the security of the colonies would be assaulted.
Before and during the Revolutionary War he participated in various revolutionary activities in order to defeat the British and regain security.
He then gave up increasingly more and more personal liberty to join the colonies together as a federation of state. While uniting the former colonies under a constitution was a very good idea (I happen to like my country today, so I may be biased), there must be a certain amount of sacrifice of personal liberty to be part of any state or nation.
I see Thomas Jefferson as behaving as the majority of people behave... liberty and security must both be guaranteed, and both are necessary and inseperable as ideals.
2007-02-22 08:09:50 · answer #2 · answered by bozsik 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberty, since he is Great Thomas Jefferson, and secondly security is essential but not on the cost of liberty, and humanist thinkers like jefferson can't stand against liberty
2007-02-18 18:45:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not knowing Tom personally, but nearly that old (smile) I offer this.
I think both "words" you use are in direct correlation.
Consider LIBERTY as FREEDOM, and involving SECURITY.
Tom was no Saint by any standards, but definitely felt levels of patriotism for the USA. His personal "securities" were in monetary wealth certainly, while wanting that to NOT BE Controlled by anyone but himself.
His ideals, which none of us can truly know, may have been skewed by that issue, but nonetheless he did put his signiture of documents demanding and supporting Liberty, Freedom, and Progress for all.
I doubt, and with no offense meant, that anyone can separate Liberty from Security, or think of them as opposing each other. I certainly equate them as conjoined.
Steven Wolf
2007-02-18 18:45:32 · answer #4 · answered by DIY Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it was Jefferson who said (I paraphrase): Anyone who gives up liberty for security, receives (deserves?) neither.
2007-02-18 19:35:04 · answer #5 · answered by jcboyle 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It has been said that those who give up liberty for security will end up withe neither. (paraphrased)
2007-02-18 19:29:52 · answer #6 · answered by bigjohn B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
TJ was not for a very big government so I think he would have advocated that each state manage itself.
He was a big supporter of individual rights so that leads me to think this way.
2007-02-18 20:07:05 · answer #7 · answered by Robert B 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are intertwined so it would be hard to say.
2007-02-18 18:38:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋