“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Too bad Jefferson wasn't around in the 1860's... Still, I agree with letting erroneous opinions stand on their own merits. But who would have thought that such errors would become the foundation of American government!

An excellent summation!!! The empire's elite, along with the left / right, liberal / conservative, democrat / republican, socialist / fascist, etc. are imperialistically expanding the union with subservient 'friends' while abhorring, diametrically opposing, and destroying it's original Republican form.

This is great on its literal intention. It speaks of individuals and groups of citizens. It does not apply to external forces or groups that are funded or organized by outside influences such as we have had with communism and terrorism.

This is the correct quote to describe the governmental philosophy and a direct contradiction to Spooner above. Here Jefferson is recognizing the natural right of the majority to rule and the democractic/republican necessity of allowing the minority to speak, be respected, and to change opinions if they can, or be corrected by the majority if they will. (I do not think it is logically correct to admire both Spooner's and Jefferson's quotes here at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. If you like one you must hate the other.)

So, Waffler, you accept gang rape, eh? Or, do you actually think a women has a right to be protected in "rights" that exist outside the scope of the raping majority?

Waffler, how you twist things to suit your view point. Remember that the association known as the United States of America is a voluntary and UNANIMOUS association -- it is not built on the will of the majority! Moses smell the roses, Jefferson did not recognize in any way "the natural right of the majority to rule"!! Hardly! Get a grip -- you do not know Jefferson if you truly believe that. He believed in Reason not the passion of the masses. The nation was established on the foundations of natural born inalienable rights -- from there all else flows. This self-evident truth is the basis of American Republican Government -- otherwise known simply as LIBERTY -- period. Let's make the world safe for Liberty -- forget about Democracy -- might does not make right.

Waffler prefers the smaller totalitarianism of the mob with its fluidity and constantly changing abilities and rules. In Jefferson's Republic, it was fine that Waffler believed such, he was just not allowed to act on it because such actions would ultimately end up against the law. In Waffler's world, new definitions explaining that a republic is only a specific area of democracy and that there are no inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Waffler would probably support the gang raper’s rules and the bandittii of the Algerian pirates, or Arabian hordes because in their specific local, they were the majority. As defined in Jefferson's day, and even understood in Spooner's day, A Republic is based on the rule of law, and a Democracy is based on the rule of man. Creator endowed inalienalbe rights are a faculty of birth.

Archer I know nothing about Jefferson okay. I am dissecting his statement above. An honest reading shows that he is referring to individuals rights, who may wish to dissovle the union formed by the majority of perons or colonies, to stand and be heard and have their say. They are then to be answered by the majority. A free people should not flinch from debate. But most importantly a free people should not be ruled by a minority or by written documents falling from the hand of God or gods.

This was what TJ first wrote then he changed it to the above. "I do not believe there is one native citizen of the US who wishes to dissolve this union: I am confident there are few native citizens who wish to change it's republican features." I'm glad he revised the statement. Waffler, all he is saying is that we all have a right to our opinion and to question authority without abuse.

Waffler, the minority cannot rule the majority in either a Democracy or a Republic; just because 10 men are not allowed to rape one women because they are the majority does not infer that the one women is "ruling" over these 10 men. Democracies are majority rule, all of the time with no exceptions (the women gets raped). Republics are majority rule, most of the time, with some exceptions (the women has the ability of defending herself). Democracy has been often defined as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner -- who do you think will win? Does the exampled lamb have any rights in this scenario, or is it doomed to death? What of two men who rob and shoot another man? The two men were in the majority. Freedom, in this case, is a threatened women, lamb, and murder victim given the ability of contesting the vote. Democracies give no such protection to the women being raped, the lamb being eaten, or the man being robbed and shot. The foundation of our Republic, however, will allow the majority vote all of the time, so long as the majority does not decide to rape the women, eat the lamb, or rob and shoot the man. How can a person convalute this to possibly believe that the raped women, eaten lamb, and robbed and shot man were trying to "rule over the majority" in their seeking to protect their individual rights? How can a person convalute this to believe that the 10 men, because they are in the majority, give the women her rights? The women has rights because, based on our Declaration of Independence, her Creator gave her rights. It is her RIGHT to NOT be raped, regardless of what the majority says! The same applies for Lamb Chop and the miserable man who is now broke and has a bullet hole in his butt-- they have rights that supersede the majority.

Furthermore, if you believe it is the majority that grants rights (Democracy), at what number do you propose the majority "assumes" the rights to give to the rest? We obviously wouldn't say that 2 men can give 1 man "rights," because that's just silly (there aren't enough in the majority), because this would mean that so long as murderers outnumbered their victims by 2:1, then it would be legally justifiable --- but what about 100 people giving 99 people their rights? Not enough people to automatically assume the majority's role as a rights giver? What ratio do you propose? 100:1? 1,00:1? 10,000:1? 100,000:1? 1,00,000:1? 10,000,000? Or how about something terribly random like pi? 3.14159:1? In your democracy dogma, what magic majority number do you propose that makes it justifiable to rape a woman or to kill a child? If 100,000,000 people said it was okay to rape a woman, is it justifiable then? What's your magic number?

Waffler, your religious prejudice and ignorance of historical events does you no constructive service. The founders through their individual religious studies discovered natural law i.e. what works and what doesn't work. The trick comes in applying the rules of law to any given society. The majority may learn by trial and error how to apply the law, but they can not create the law. As I've described today through out these quotes, the lawful Republic, as was once established, is now dead. A religious like oligarchy under the guise of Democracy has now taken its place.

Religious scriptures are "the wisdom of the ages" and yes they have much to say about how we should live together in respect. I believe that Judeo/Christian belief and teaching and especially the teaching and minstry of Jesus are the foundations of democracy. Again it is the wisdom of the ages and not something that has fallen from the sky. I do believe that mankind can come together into agreement about the "wisdom of the ages". I don't think this wisdom needs to be set up as some type of mantra, taboo, talisman or whatever you wish to call it. Mike your words will never hurt me. Love to my misguided friends.

I don't need your feigned love or your guidance, Waffler. Get off your high horse and join the rest of us on the ground. The teachings of Jesus have ZERO to do with democracy -- stoning harlots is democracy. Jesus' teachings when legislated (i.e. dictated by government under threat of force) are communistic at best. Only when we voluntarily act in accordance with compassion, charity, tolerance, honor, and love do we embody the best of Jesus' example. These 'virtues' are the foundation of a free republic -- because if we have to be forced to be good, we may as well live in a police state, which is Hell on Earth.

Well said, Archer.

Don't you people have anyting better to do than argue on a site clearly meant for comments on quotes. By the way I believe this is a great quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson didn't have a problem with secession, and in the federation of independent States created by the founders, secession was one of the checks (along with interposition and nullification) to be used on the national government. In truth, few of the founders would have approved Lincoln's warped view that once a State became part of the union it could never leave. Had it been so, they would not have ratified the constitution.