For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy.Read the whole thing. Adams's reply can be found online beginning here. The available copy is in Jefferson's handwriting, so you may need to use the link on each page that brings up a larger, higher-resolution image. Don't worry about the many historical references and ancient-language quotations in these letter unless you want to.
Directing this question to my students, what do you think, did these Founders really favor an aristocracy? Are Jefferson's and/or Adams's consistent with American democracy as you understand it?
1 comment:
To the first question I believe the answer must be yes. They favored themselves and in describing a natural aristocracy they describe themselves. Therefore by favoring themselves to rule they favor a natural aristocratic rule. I guess by favor I mean more that they believed it was their right to rule like an oligarchy but a really big and a “more free” oligarchy. I am not even sure if all that rambling makes sense but it is kind of the way I view this issue.
In my understanding the second question means, did their theorizing that there is a natural aristocracy which should be those who govern hold true throughout the history of the US? I think the answer to this question if put down to yes or no is mostly yes America has been governed by a natural aristocracy. This one to me seems very obvious in the last 20 years. These recent Presidents can all be lumped in as natural aristocrats. Bill Clinton was a lawyer educated at Ivey league schools. He rose to power by his talents for government and virtue until he threw virtue out the window and cheated on his wife in front of the nation. Next would be the father son duo of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. W served in the military, had an Ivey league education (not that he faired to well in school) and proved his talents and virtue through his military and civil service putting him in power. Along with the fact that his father was already political set him up nicely for government. The reason I mention that these men were educated at the Ivey league schools is because I believe that we can consider these school to be the ones producing the highest education of our day. During the time of Jefferson and Adams only those going to College could be considered for natural aristocracy. The scale must change to adapt to the natural progression of the country. Now for the current politicians, McCain is a war hero, married money and has a long service to the country. He is probably the best example of natural aristocracy I can think of because of his talents and virtue which give him exceptional power in government. One other thing I believe that he is much like the founders with is his breaking down of party lines. The original natural aristocrats didn’t have standing parties and McCain is a man who has his party allegiance called into question. He addresses government not just on party lines but similar to the founders who didn’t rely on the party line to show them how to vote. On the other side there is Obama who is Ivey League educated, black but that should not factor on this discussion as race is a minimal factor now as opposed to the time of Jefferson where it would have been huge. He has risen to great power albeit as a demagogue but still he has great power over many people based off of his talents as an individual. Personally I think he could be considered a natural aristocrat as he has a natural talent for government but it has yet to be seen if he is virtuous as those before him. Ok I think I went a little overboard on that answer and I am sure it was poorly edited by myself. Anyway I would like to know if I am way off base with this or not. Thanks
Post a Comment