> Last month or so you and I discussed Jefferson and the wealthy,both coming to
> the conclusion he would support such modern things as unions, and progressive
> taxation. My friend who I was debating related that Jefferson depised big
> cities, and their urban workers and would have supported their employers
> against their organizing because they were propertyless. I disagree. I think
> he would have supported such measures against the financial elite in the
> northern states or anywhere else. What do you think?

While it is true that Jefferson despised the big cities OF HIS TIME, it is
equally true that Jefferson was well-capable of adapting to changing
circumstances and to new social and political conditions.  That is what is
so perplexing to some of his critics.  His mind was NOT stuck in a given
historical period, and he did not maintain a foolish consistency (the
hobgoblin of mediocre minds) throughout his life.  That fact, however, makes
it difficult for us today to predict just how Jefferson would react to the
circumstances and conditions we are familiar with two hundred years later.
But Jefferson himself gives a hint:

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of
man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

Sure, Jefferson disparaged the cannaille (rabble) of the big cities of his day,
because settled people in his time were farmers who made for themselves all
the basic commodities they needed to live.  There were a few tradesmen in
the cities, of course, and he didn't disparge them.  But only those citizens
with property were settled and reliable, while the big cities often
attracted the misfits and those unable to make it in the real economy of the
time.  But to translate that into the times 200 years later is a BIG
mistake.  It is not the possession of property that is the unchangeable
principle, but THE INHERENT AND UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN!

Therefore, it is unthinkable that Jefferson would support the wealthy and
their hold upon the lives and fortunes of their fellow citizens through
exercising practical control over almost ALL the means of earning an income,
as against the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
of the vast majority of the citizens who were in almost slave-like
dependency upon the industry owners due to the triumph of capitalism.  No
way, Josie! ;-)  Natural Rights come first -- always and forever.

Your friend's problem is, he has no concept of the American government, and
how it is founded on the principle of equal rights.  That is the foundation,
and the nation goes astray when it deviates from that.