White House website

[Grubendol]

this was pointed out to me recently and I wanted to see if it was true so I looked for myself. the current White House website outright lies about the party affiliation of past presidents, making it look like certain Founding Fathers were members of the Republican party. Of course the Republican Party was founded as a Reform Party in the 1854 as a response to the problem of Slavery, so it's impossible for Thomas Jefferson, for example, to have been a Republican.

Nevertheless, from the Whitehouse.gov site:

Sharp political conflict developed, and two separate parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, began to form. Jefferson gradually assumed leadership of the Republicans, who sympathized with the revolutionary cause in France. Attacking Federalist policies, he opposed a strong centralized Government and championed the rights of states.
As a reluctant candidate for President in 1796, Jefferson came within three votes of election. Through a flaw in the Constitution, he became Vice President, although an opponent of President Adams. In 1800 the defect caused a more serious problem. Republican electors, attempting to name both a President and a Vice President from their own party, cast a tie vote between Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House of Representatives settled the tie. Hamilton, disliking both Jefferson and Burr, nevertheless urged Jefferson's election.

just wanted to share. thanks.

[Steve Machol]

Unfrickingbelievable!

[Grubendol]

but wait there's more!

This is from Jame's Madison's bio (the fourth president):

In Congress, he helped frame the Bill of Rights and enact the first revenue legislation. Out of his leadership in opposition to Hamilton's financial proposals, which he felt would unduly bestow wealth and power upon northern financiers, came the development of the Republican, or Jeffersonian, Party.
As President Jefferson's Secretary of State, Madison protested to warring France and Britain that their seizure of American ships was contrary to international law. The protests, John Randolph acidly commented, had the effect of "a shilling pamphlet hurled against eight hundred ships of war."

In point of Fact the "Jefferson" party, or the party founded by Thomas J. was the Democratic-Republican party. it is the same party now known as the Democratic party.

[gemstone]

Link:http://thirdpartywatch.com/encyclope...ersonian_Party


History
The Jeffersonian Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792 as a congressional caucus in support of the Bill of Rights. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson was elected President of the United States, becoming the first of three Jeffersonian Presidents (John Madison and James Monroe being the other two), who held the presidency for 24 consecutive years. The election of John Quincy Adams in 1824 led to a temporary dissolution of the party.
In the year 2000, nearly 175 years after it’s dissolution, the Jeffersonian Party reemerged as a voice for states rights and constitutional adherence. It's mission was simple: assist the reelection efforts of U.S. House and Senate members who support and adhere to the founding principles of Thomas Jefferson.
Retrieved from "http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Jeffersonian_Party"

[gemstone]

link:http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h446.html

The Jeffersonian Republicans placed their faith in the virtues of an agrarian democracy. They believed that the greatest threat to liberty was posed by a tyrannical central government and that power in the hands of the common people was preferred. Those natural democratic instincts required sharpening, however, by education. In foreign affairs, the Jeffersonian-Republicans favored France over Britain. Jefferson lauded the French Revolution, which claimed the American Revolution as its model, but decried its bloody excesses. The Jeffersonian-Republicans opposed the Jay's Treaty (1795) as excessively pro-British.

The Jeffersonians began using the name Democratic-Republicans in 1796, and would later shorten it to Republicans. During the time of Andrew Jackson they became the Democratic Party. Over the course of history the idealistic Jeffersonian philosophy lost out to Federalism

[gemstone]

It apears that the democrats were republicans before they were democrats....or

They were for it before they were against it.:)

[shanbaum]

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson was elected President of the United States, becoming the first of three Jeffersonian Presidents (John Madison and James Monroe being the other two), who held the presidency for 24 consecutive years. The election of John Quincy Adams in 1824 led to a temporary dissolution of the party.

I would think that those who want to start a political party based on the principles of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe (to the extent that the principles of these three actually cohere) might begin by learning some basics, for example, the proper names of all three.

Until they do, you may want to take your history lessons from elsewhere.

[Grubendol]

Read Jefferson's writings and you'll find he was probably the most liberal president we have ever had.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Since when have politicians been concerned with actual facts?
They prefer malleable facts - ones that can be altered, or portions thereof, to whatever they wish - at the moment.
And if the facts don't match - rewrite history.

[Grubendol]

Orwell much? ;)


the problem is that this should be something held to Smithsonian like standards IMHO

[GOS_Queen]

I guess I was under the impression the Bill of Rights was pretty much null and void ... and this current administration seems to see quite a few "flaws" with the constitution ...

[1968]

the current White House website outright lies about the party affiliation of past presidents, making it look like certain Founding Fathers were members of the Republican party.

This (and the responses it generated) is taking paranoia of the Bush administration to a new extreme!

From Whitehouse.gov (full-context): http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tj3.html

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

How about a retraction?

[DragonLensmanWV]

This (and the responses it generated) is taking paranoia of the Bush administration to a new extreme!

From Whitehouse.gov (full-context): http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tj3.html

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

How about a retraction?

How about Cheney declaring himself above the law?

[chm2023]

How about Cheney declaring himself above the law?

Well give the devil his due. Cheney piously clung to executive privelege while refusing to cooperate with the Libbey spec pros and while refusing to provide the names of the people who helped craft "our" energy policy. Now of course, when convenient, his office is part of the legislative branch. God love 'im, bet he sees nothing wrong with this. Yikes.

Funny line in Dowd's column, something like: "it's ironic that Cheney bullied the Pentagon and generals and Tenet, but it's the archivists who won't put up with his act". Pretty cute.

[1968]

How about Cheney declaring himself above the law?

Let's tackle one item at a time. It was asserted that: "the current White House website outright lies about the party affiliation of past presidents, making it look like certain Founding Fathers were members of the Republican party." Is that true or not?

[Steve Machol]

Since they lie about almost everything else it's not entirely out of character for them to do something like this. After all Karl Rove has made it a goal to turn the U.S. into a one-party system, similar to other totalitarian one-party states.

Nonetheless your point is taken but I would have to see the same pages from the Clinton years to see if they were changed or not. The earliest records I could find were from Jan 24, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/200101240...dents/tj3.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200101240...dents/jm4.html

Bush was sworn in on Jan 20, 2001. Therefore either the Bush Administration showed an uncharacteristic competency and changed this page within days of entering office or the reference to 'Replublicans' pre-dated the current Administration.

Also for future reference Wikipedia can be edited by almost anyone and is hardly the most reliable source of information available.

[1968]

Since they lie about almost everything else it's not entirely out of character for them to do something like this. After all Karl Rove has made it a goal to turn the U.S. into a one-party system, similar to other totalitarian one-party states.

Nonetheless your point is taken but I would have to see the same pages from the Clinton years to see if they were changed or not. The earliest records I could find were from Jan 24, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/200101240...dents/tj3.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200101240...dents/jm4.html

Bush was sworn in on Jan 20, 2001. Therefore either the Bush Administration showed an uncharacteristic competency and changed this page within days of entering office or the reference to 'Replublicans' pre-dated the current Administration.

Also for future reference Wikipedia can be edited by almost anyone and is hardly the most reliable source of information available.

I think “your point is taken” is as close to a retraction as this thread is going to see.

If someone is really that mistrustful that they believe the information about Jefferson that appears on the White House website was fabricated by the Bush administration within four days of taking office, perhaps they should look into others sources of information. I'm well aware that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, however, it serves as a useful starting point for those actually interested in fact-checking assertions... particularly when primary sources of information are cited as they are in the article I referenced.

I understand that this forum is for fun (and part of the fun is antagonizing those with whom you disagree!), however, hastily implying that the current administration fabricates information on webpages that hardly anyone would read or stating “they lie about almost everything else” is silly. As an Independent, I think a sober assessment of their failures and misgivings is much more persuasive.

[Steve Machol]

As an Independent, I think a sober assessment of their failures and misgivings is much more persuasive.

I agree with that, although total sobriety is no guarantee of clear thinking. ;)

[1968]

I agree with that, although total sobriety is no guarantee of clear thinking. ;)

Good double entendre!