# The Thomas Jefferson conundrum



## Ravi (Jul 3, 2014)

I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:



> he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold]: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another


.

Africans in America/Part 2/Rough draft of the Declaration

Was Jefferson just talking out of his ass as a way to stick a needle in King George's eye? Because Jefferson himself owned slaves, refused to free slaves, and did in fact use them as collateral for loans.

Is old Tommy the world's biggest hypocrite?


----------



## whitehall (Jul 3, 2014)

Maybe he was talking about the Irish.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 3, 2014)

I doubt it but do you have any evidence he was talking about the Irish?


----------



## norwegen (Jul 3, 2014)

The founders were liberal.  The founding era, being a movement in liberalism, "failed to free the slaves, failed to offer full political equality to women, . . . failed to grant citizenship to Indians."*

So you explain to us why one of your liberal heroes was such a hypocrite.

Thank you.



* Peter C. Mancall, _Valley of Opportunity: Economic Culture Along the Upper Susquehanna_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 232.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 3, 2014)

Ravi said:


> I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They had to compromise with the Southern States and a few Northern States
Jefferson worked to oppose slavery in other ways.
Mainly the Northwest Territory that forbids slavery in any new States, but he also worked to get more States slavery free, by 1789, 5 of the Northern states had abolished slavery.  By 1804 all the other Northern states had abolished slavery.

Congress Deletes A Fourth of Jefferson's Text of the Declaration of Independence

Over several days of debate, more than a quarter of the text was deleted, most notably a scathing denunciation of the slave trade. It was no secret that Jefferson resented those changes. He noted at the time: passages were &#8220;struck out in complaisance to S. Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves & who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little under those censures; for tho' their people have very few slaves themselves, yet they have been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.&#8221;


----------



## norwegen (Jul 3, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> ...


Jefferson, no doubt more than other Americans because he has historically carried the mantle of the American character on his shoulders, is vulnerable to modern censure for his apparent contrasting views.  He had an obsession with equality and natural rights, and hated slavery, and believed that the conviction of the American psyche by America's revolutionary principles would soon doom the institution.  He himself tried unsuccessfully to facilitate the manumission of slaves in Virginia and also, as you say, in the new western territories.

But Jefferson was also very human, even somewhat backward-looking in some regards (he didn't appreciate the sweeping economic changes occurring on this side of the Atlantic), and very complicated.  He was an eighteenth century fellow, an intelligent, bookish, slaveholding southern planter who would have forfeited his rights to wealth and happiness had he personally abandoned slavery before any emancipation measures were passed.  And he knew that day would come, for were it never to come, America's founding principles would forever be violated.


----------



## regent (Jul 3, 2014)

Ravi said:


> I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Declaration of Independence was a form of propaganda and to some extent it worked. One of the lessons of the Declaration would be to connect Jefferson's use of George III to politics today.  
I think some slave holders of that era believed their slaves were safer and better cared for than perhaps even if they were granted freedom.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 3, 2014)

norwegen said:


> The founders were liberal.  The founding era, being a movement in liberalism, "failed to free the slaves, failed to offer full political equality to women, . . . failed to grant citizenship to Indians."*
> 
> So you explain to us why one of your liberal heroes was such a hypocrite.
> 
> ...


He isn't my liberal hero. I think he was a phony.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 3, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> ...


that doesn't explain why he kept sllaves


----------



## regent (Jul 3, 2014)

Ravi said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



One of the rules of history is that one should not import values, beliefs and practices of the present into the past. Someday citizens may question why we allowed red and green lights to control our use of automobiles. At the time of Jefferson slavery was being questioned and yet sixty years later Americans have to fight a war to end the practice.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 3, 2014)

regent said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> ...



Foolishly so, yes, however, many of our far right citizens would probably do better today in a benign indentured servitude.  Their children would at least be decently educated.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 3, 2014)

regent said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



One should always, yes, be careful against 'present-ism,' but that principled does not prevent us from objectively and correctly condemning the KKK or the Nazis.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 3, 2014)

Ravi said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Because he inherited them from his family and from his wife's estates, and he mortgaged them to keep up his life of the idle rich.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 3, 2014)

Ya gotta love Jefferson, a man who condemned his own bastard children to slavery for life! What a guy!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 3, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> Ya gotta love Jefferson, a man who condemned his own bastard children to slavery for life! What a guy!



For his life, not theirs.  He trained them in professions and they were freed by his will.

Of course, their mother remained a slave after he died, because she belonged to the estate, first, of her half-sister and then her half-niece, who hated her with a passion.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 3, 2014)

Ravi said:


> I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He was a politician, and a propagandist, so yes, he was just talking out of his ass. The myth around him is grossly overblown. He wrote about whatever suited his allies and his own needs were at the time he said anything, which is why just about anybody of any ideological lean can cherry pick something he said and pretend it's some appeal to authority. He never hesitated to trash and ignore the Constitution whenever it interfered with his political goals, and was the first President to use Federal troops against Americans. As 'Mr. Neutrality' he was the first to go to war against a foreign enemy as well. His second term was essentially a dictatorship.

So, yes, he was never the shining example of libertarianism, rights, and democracy he has been made out to be. He burned most of his letters, as well as all of his wife's letters, and just left the ones he thought made him look good, so nobody knows what he really thought about anything. He was out for himself and his own interests and nobody or anything else, as most politicians are and always will be.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 3, 2014)

Ravi said:


> He isn't my liberal hero. I think he was a phony.



he never freed any of his slaves, and in fact had no compunctions about breaking up slave families by selling them off to raise money when he was short of cash, unlike many other slave owners of that era, so the myth that he 'hated slavery' and that he was morally tortured by it doesn't really bear up to scrutiny. A book called *Master of the Mountain* came out recently that shed a lot of light on Jefferson's estate management practices, including his approving the purchase of spiked collars several times by his overseers, and hiring overseers notorious for their beatings and whippings of slaves.


----------



## norwegen (Jul 3, 2014)

Ravi said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> > The founders were liberal. The founding era, being a movement in liberalism, "failed to free the slaves, failed to offer full political equality to women, . . . failed to grant citizenship to Indians."*
> ...


He wasn't a "lefty," either. Yet I thought maybe you might not disagree with me, and then fail to defend his "hypocrisy."

Nor was he a phony. He didn't hide his apparent contrasting views.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 4, 2014)

regent said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> ...




The Declaration of Independence was not propaganda.
It was a legal document that Declared War against England and was sent to the King of England.
Every single one of those men who signed it put their lives and their possessions on the line if they had lost the war.
When the war was won that legal document was used to form the bases of our Constitution.
Who taught you this incorrect information?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2014)

*he never freed any of his slaves*

What an uneducated remark

His will freed his five children

Jefferson was no saint, he was a man of his time, and there is a lot of present-ism being presentensd as accurate commentary here


----------



## Sarah G (Jul 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> *he never freed any of his slaves*
> 
> What a stupid fuck
> 
> ...



You reminded me, the John Adams series is on HBO today.  It is so good.  The first one is just starting.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2014)

I like the part where they are meeting one another for the first time in Philadelphia.

Jefferson is complaining of the noisesomeness of the city, wishing "I were in my own country."


----------



## peach174 (Jul 4, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > He isn't my liberal hero. I think he was a phony.
> ...



That book is full of lies.
Especially when it says- when he engineered the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Jefferson pushed for slavery in that territory.
This is just the opposite. Proof of this being true is in the records of our Library of Congress.
People who write this stuff rely on people who are not very well informed about our history.
It's Despicable.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Oh, yeah, there are many, many despicable such characters: David Barton is just another one.

David Barton | Right Wing Watch


----------



## regent (Jul 4, 2014)

peach174 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The Congress had voted independence on July 2, on that day the deed was done. On July 4th the Congress voted for Jefferson's document to be accepted giving the reasons and so forth for the July 2nd vote.  The Congress made 86 changes and dropped 480 words. This was important stuff. The English Parliament the real culprit was not mentioned, but George III was given top billing. Why? 
In any case a great deal of time and effort went into justifying the break with England and why the break. What was the founder's purpose with the Declaration to declare independence they had already voted for earlier? The founders were trying to state the purpose for the split, and further their own cause, and that's called propaganda. 
An interesting assignment is cull the Declaration and find the end products in the Constitution. There are some. Wonder how many signers of the Declaration were framers?


----------



## peach174 (Jul 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...




At least Barton gets his from actual historic books and documents and not made up bull crap. He also shows his proof with those books, letters and documents.
Show where this guy has proof of actual documents from Jefferson that says he was all for slavery in the northwest territory.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 4, 2014)

regent said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




Congress voted on the Lee Resolution for independence on July 2nd and was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies, New York not voting. 
Immediately afterward, the Congress began to consider the Declaration. Adams and Franklin had made only a few changes before the committee submitted the document. The discussion in Congress resulted in some alterations and deletions, but the basic document remained Jefferson's. The process of revision continued through all of July 3 and into the late morning of July 4. Then, at last, church bells rang out over Philadelphia; the Declaration had been officially adopted.

Further their own cause?

85% of the nation agreed to split with England.
There was no further reason to convince the 15% that were still loyal to the crown.
After the war was won most of them left and went to Canada or back to England.


----------



## norwegen (Jul 4, 2014)

regent said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


George III given top billing?  He was the _only_ one the DoI was meant for.  The Americans had already dismissed the Parliament, having already been seating their own legislatures.  They were already even seating a national legislature.  Splitting from the king was merely the final break from England; the DoI meant that the Americans were no longer residents of commonwealths but of sovereign states.

 The founders did not further their own cause with the DoI; they did not act on their own.  The sentiment among Americans as a society was a Whiggish sentiment.  Adoption of a document declaring independence was a natural development in a society excited about its own brand of republican polity, in a society anticipating self-government and a government rooted in natural law principles.


----------



## norwegen (Jul 4, 2014)

peach174 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Yes, the Tories fled; the Americans wanted to retain their liberties and their limited governments.  No wonder that Whig politics and the abolition movement would give birth to the modern Republican Party.  Natural law principles of equality and liberty would find more permanence in our land because of it.

 I just wish today's Republican Party would remember that.


----------



## regent (Jul 4, 2014)

norwegen said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



The Declaration of I was written with one eye on France,  and to that extent the D of I worked. Would we have won the Revolutionary war without France? Propaganda is not  evil we are subjected to it every day. 
Did Jefferson take on George III rather than Parliament because it is easier to blame one person than a group. Who get the most criticism in our government the president or the Congress?


----------



## norwegen (Jul 4, 2014)

regent said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


The Congress had _no need_ to take on the Parliament.  No need to.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 4, 2014)

norwegen said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > norwegen said:
> ...




No it wasn't the Parliament that decided to start ruling the colonists. It was King George III who decided to rule them in the 1770's after they had their own established government for 150 years.
This was the beginning of the rebellion.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 5, 2014)

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



"At least Barton gets his from actual historic books and documents and not made up bull crap. He also shows his proof with those books, letters and documents."

lol


 Rise of a right-wing quack: Faux-historian David Bartons shocking new influence

David Barton -- Glenn Beck's favorite "historian" -- is a discredited fraud. Which makes his new ascent terrifying 



    [M]any professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible.

    The problem with David Barton is that theres a lot of truth in what he says, said Derek H. Davis, director of church-state studies at Baylor University, a Baptist institution in Waco, Tex. But the end product is a lot of distortions, half-truths and twisted history.

Thats a very generous way of putting it. 



Rise of a right-wing quack: Faux-historian David Barton?s shocking new influence - Salon.com


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 5, 2014)

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



In seeking to establish, what he called "an empire for liberty," Jefferson influenced the country's policies toward Native Americans and the extension of slavery into the West. Despite a life-long interest in Native American culture, President Jefferson advocated policies that would dislocate Native Americans and their way of life. In 1784, Jefferson opposed the extension of slavery into the northwest territory, but he later supported its westward extension because he feared that any restriction of slavery could lead to a civil war and an end to the nation. At the end of his presidency, Jefferson looked forward to a United States that spread across the entire continent of North America.

The West - Thomas Jefferson | Exhibitions - Library of Congress


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 5, 2014)

peach174 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...




I have a minor in history, and your 15% number I've only recently heard about, coming upon the heels of right wing 'historians' like Barton, misrepresenting REAL facts

HISTORIAN Robert Calhoon said the consensus of historians is that in the Thirteen Colonies between 40 and 45 percent of the white population supported the Patriots' cause, between 15 and 20% supported the Loyalists, and the remainder were neutral or kept a low profile.



With a white population of about 2.5 million, that makes about 380,000 to 500,000 Loyalists. The great majority of them remained in America, since only about 80,000 Loyalists left the United States 1775-1783. They went to Canada, Britain, Florida or the West Indies, but some eventually returned


Patriot (American Revolution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## peach174 (Jul 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...






I have been reading about our history way before Barton was ever on the TV
I have read many history books that have said there was around 15 to 20% for loyalists.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/11b.asp
In the long run, however, the patriots were much more successful attracting support. American patriots won the war of propaganda. Committees of Correspondence persuaded many fence-sitters to join the patriot cause.


----------



## regent (Jul 5, 2014)

norwegen said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > norwegen said:
> ...



Of the 27 Jefferson grievances, how many were caused by Parliament and how many by George?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 5, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Your link

"Often overlooked are the fence-sitters who made up the largest group."

NO serious historian thinks 85% of the Colonist's supported the Revolution. NONE


----------



## regent (Jul 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



It was always one third supported Britain,  one third supported revolution, and one third could care less. All historian's estimates, of course.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 9, 2014)

> They had to compromise with the Southern States and a few Northern States
> Jefferson worked to oppose slavery in other ways.
> Mainly the Northwest Territory that forbids slavery in any new States, but he also worked to get more States slavery free, by 1789, 5 of the Northern states had abolished slavery. By 1804 all the other Northern states had abolished slavery.


 It was largely the New England Federalists who abolished slavery in the northern states,  and they did so because of political pressure from Calvinist fundamentalists and other evangelicals of the First and Second 'Great Awakenings', i.e. abolitionists. 'Anti-slavery' is not to be conflated with abolitionism, then or ever. Most anti-slavery advocates were not abolitionists, and were agitating to keep blacks out of the new territories altogether, which is why they also passed the Black Codes, which in many states made it pretty much impossible for blacks to make a legal living in many of them. Anti-slavery advocates, outside of the abolitionists, were advocating what would be a modern white nationalist's wet dream; no blacks at all being allowed in the new territories.


 It's also an easy thing to vote and support ordinances that have no effect on you personally or your personal wealth. Jefferson's 'opposition to slavery' diminished in direct proportion to his increasing power to actually do something about it.  




> Over several days of debate, more than a quarter of the text was deleted, most notably a scathing denunciation of the slave trade. It was no secret that Jefferson resented those changes. He noted at the time: passages were struck out in complaisance to S. Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves & who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little under those censures; for tho' their people have very few slaves themselves, yet they have been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.


 The Jefferson of 1774 was not the Jefferson of later years; in that era he was caught up in the independence movement and all the abstract philosophical principles that went into the propaganda against King George and feverishly writing grandiose manifestos.  


 What politicians say is not to be conflated with what they actually believe or do in their personal lives, any more than the 'idealism' of modern trust fund kids and frat brats hanging out in college means squat later on; they get over it and go on to enjoy the benefits of family wealth and business and social connections, and never let idealism interfere with taking advantage of those privileges and stations in life, particularly where their money and political influence is concerned. Jefferson was no liberationist egalitarian after the Revolution nor for the rest of his life. He goes silent on slavery abolition by the 1790's.




> Jefferson, no doubt more than other Americans because he has historically carried the mantle of the American character on his shoulders, is vulnerable to modern censure for his apparent contrasting views. He had an obsession with equality and natural rights, and hated slavery, and believed that the conviction of the American psyche by America's revolutionary principles would soon doom the institution. He himself tried unsuccessfully to facilitate the manumission of slaves in Virginia and also, as you say, in the new western territories.


 He didn't try very hard re manumission, it's no risk to support something that was never going to happen and hence be able to claim to abolitionist political supporters he was 'on their side'. This is common even today; politicians like LBJ were extremely adept at this sort of manipulation, as a modern example. Manumission is not the same as freeing them; it's a commercial transaction, and something that is bought from the owners; some slaves were allowed to make money, favored ones, but try and come up with how much money a field hand would ever see.


  If he 'hated slavery' there is no indication at all of it in his personal business affairs; he was very diligent at turning as large a profit as possible out his own slaves. His 'apparently contrasting views' become perfectly clear when one accepts that he was a duplicitous politician and merely attempting to cover all bases on two sides of the Atlantic, particularly in France after the war, where Americas friends, particularly Lafayette, were his only access to the French Crown who could help both him and the U.S. with paying off British creditors.  




> The Declaration of Independence was a form of propaganda and to some extent it worked. One of the lessons of the Declaration would be to connect Jefferson's use of George III to politics today.
> I think some slave holders of that era believed their slaves were safer and better cared for than perhaps even if they were granted freedom.


 Yes. Nonetheless, the complaints were overblown, and George III, or more accurately his ministers, handled it all pretty badly, mainly from arrogance. They lost a lot of revenue when the East India Company went bankrupt in the 1760's, and after a long period of benign neglect and looking the other way on the colonial traders dealing with 'enemies' in the Caribbean  decided the colonies should be able to pay their own way re military expenditures, they went overboard and imposed too many revenue schemes at once. The colonies had some sympathizers in Parliament, England itself going through the same sort of thing themselves.




> One of the rules of history is that one should not import values, beliefs and practices of the present into the past. Someday citizens may question why we allowed red and green lights to control our use of automobiles. At the time of Jefferson slavery was being questioned and yet sixty years later Americans have to fight a war to end the practice.


 It isn't necessary to import values of the present, since those values already existed  in Jefferson's day, via the Calvinists and some of the evangelicals and many New England Federalists.  


 His 'freeing of his children' is merely a common practice of the day, cutting a deal with a favored female slave trading the freedom of her children for sexual favors. Technically they might have had the legal status of slaves, but practically they were to be freed before they were even born, and not the same as freeing real slaves. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise as some sort of hand-wave in defense of his slave owning. He wasn't conflicted at all about slavery; he loved the money they brought in.


 Re *Master of the Mountain*:




> That book is full of lies.
> Especially when it says- when he engineered the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Jefferson pushed for slavery in that territory.
> This is just the opposite. Proof of this being true is in the records of our Library of Congress.
> People who write this stuff rely on people who are not very well informed about our history.
> It's Despicable.


 Cite the 'lies', from the book itself, not some web page you read somewhere. People who write these sorts of claims about books they've never read are obviously not informed at all, much less well informed. Your's and Jake's  juvenile emotional needs to disparage people they disagree with says more about you than than it does about those you're weakly attempting to dismiss. Go play in the Fever Swamps with the other kids; you'll be happier there.




> The Congress had voted independence on July 2, on that day the deed was done. On July 4th the Congress voted for Jefferson's document to be accepted giving the reasons and so forth for the July 2nd vote. The Congress made 86 changes and dropped 480 words. This was important stuff. The English Parliament the real culprit was not mentioned, but George III was given top billing. Why?


 Because Parliament wasn't entirely behind George III, and some were sympathizers; no point in making unnecessary enemies, especially if the rebellion failed and one might want friends in England in that event. England was itself suffering from new taxes as well, so who knew if the war would even reach a  major shooting stage at the time, or last as long as it did? Also taking into consideration the fact that many colonists still supported the Crown, there was no point in alienating them all at once either. Even Ben Franklin's son opposed the break with England, for one example.



> In any case a great deal of time and effort went into justifying the break with England and why the break. What was the founder's purpose with the Declaration to declare independence they had already voted for earlier? The founders were trying to state the purpose for the split, and further their own cause, and that's called propaganda.


 Yes.



> An interesting assignment is cull the Declaration and find the end products in the Constitution. There are some. Wonder how many signers of the Declaration were framers?


 According to Forrest McDonald's *The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson*, a lot of Jefferson's and others views were lifted directly from Henry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke, and his *Craftsman* pamphlets of the early 1720's and thereabouts. St. John was a proponent of 'Tory Oppositionism'. I'll dig out some cites when I remember where I laid it.




> At least Barton gets his from actual historic books and documents and not made up bull crap. He also shows his proof with those books, letters and documents.
> Show where this guy has proof of actual documents from Jefferson that says he was all for slavery in the northwest territory.


 Show where you actually read the book, then you can make ignorant specious claims about it and what the author said in it concerning Jefferson and the Northwest Ordinance, the Louisiana Purchase, or anything else. It also helps to know what Jefferson was doing in those years, circa 1783 and after, in attempting to influence France, and dealing with his influential friends of America there, like Lafayette and others, who were all abolitionists and pressuring Jefferson on why the Americans were not freeing slaves as per the Revolutionary spirit espoused in the Declaration.


----------



## NLT (Jul 9, 2014)

Ravi said:


> I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is curious because England did not allow slavery and in 1706 ruled that once a  slave stepped foot on English soil or aboard a English ship, they became a free man.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 9, 2014)

The "man of his time" excuse is bullshit.

He knew slavery was wrong as did many "men of his time."

And yet he owned them, bought and sold them, mortgaged them and only released the ones that were his relatives.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 9, 2014)

Ravi said:


> The "man of his time" excuse is bull****.
> 
> He knew slavery was wrong as did many "men of his time."
> 
> And yet he owned them, bought and sold them, mortgaged them and only released the ones that were his relatives.



Yes. The 'presentism' argument fails for a number of reasons, not least because several other states had already emancipated slaves, and he had plenty of evidence at hand to rebut his paternalism argument against freeing slaves from Pennsylvania, right next door to Virginia, as a prime example of his theories being nonsense. In his *Notes* his 'many contradictions' are merely dissembling and attempts at amelioration, a common tactic among slaveholders to justify keeping slaves. His 'contradictions and paradoxes' aren't mysterious at all when one just accepts the fact that he said whatever suited the political expediency of the time. He was very much a liar.

his support for 'manumission' is another example of dissimulation and amelioration; manumission is not emancipation, and for all his noise he didn't emancipate any of his slaves, despite the Virginia law passed allowed him to do so. Others did, even in Virginia, but not Jefferson, and not even in his will did he free even his favorite and most loyal slaves.

There are far better examples of heroes in the founding era than Jefferson: Franklin. George Mason, Benjamin Rush, etc., for those who have a need to turn history into some kind of a fantasy morality play that confirms their own biases.

Re releasing his relatives, he required payment even from or for them. He didn't manumit any for free.


----------



## dcraelin (Jul 9, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> ...



I dont believe he was the first president to use federal troops against Americans....that goes to Washington during either the whiskey or the shays rebellion.  



Picaro said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > He isn't my liberal hero. I think he was a phony.
> ...



I think he did free his mistress and her children, but I may be wrong on that.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 9, 2014)

There is another manufactured controversy about the Declaration of Independence. The concerns centers around a claim by a liberal college professor that a period was mistakenly inserted into copies. Both issues are ludicrous. Maybe it's time to remind the victims of the sub-standard American education system that the Declaration of Independence is different from the Constitution. The DOI merely states the reasons that the Colonies were severing ties to England. The Constitution, however, is the law of the land.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 9, 2014)

whitehall said:


> There is another manufactured controversy about the Declaration of Independence. The concerns centers around a claim by a liberal college professor that a period was mistakenly inserted into copies. Both issues are ludicrous. Maybe it's time to remind the victims of the sub-standard American education system that the Declaration of Independence is different from the Constitution. The DOI merely states the reasons that the Colonies were severing ties to England. The Constitution, however, is the law of the land.



How does that excuse Jefferson's willful owning of slaves?


----------



## Picaro (Jul 9, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> I dont believe he was the first president to use federal troops against Americans....that goes to Washington during either the whiskey or the shays rebellion.



True, Washington ordered forces to go against them, but he went through the intermediary of the state militias, and didn't send Federal soldiers. It's a technicality, but a revealing one.



> I think he did free his mistress and her children, but I may be wrong on that.


Yes, as part of a trade for mistress services, which was most certainly a very lop-sided deal. Not many slaves would refuse deals with their owners, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Dante (Jul 9, 2014)

Picaro said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > I dont believe he was the first president to use federal troops against Americans....that goes to Washington during either the whiskey or the shays rebellion.
> ...



Militias weren't federal troops when they'd been federalized?

Hmm...


----------



## Dante (Jul 9, 2014)

Ravi said:


> I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When it came time to stand on the principles (while President as opposed to as Blowhardo-in-Chief), principles he insisted everyone else stand on -- he folded. 

His battles with Chief Justice Marshall and Hamilton had him become unhinged on more than one occasion. Like Reagan, he was more myth than man of his words


----------



## Picaro (Jul 9, 2014)

Dante said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



I bit different, using local boys instead of Army units from outside the state, so it didn't ruffle feathers as much as Jefferson's use of troops did; Washington's use of the local militia were essentially deputized and enforcing local state laws as well.


----------



## Dante (Jul 9, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Washington sent federal troops (state troops/federalized) to straighten out deluded people. One argument people revolting were using was comparing their recent complaints and incidents to the revolutionary causes...they were highly deluded as unlike the colonists the revolts were composed of citizens who had representation -- they just didn't like being on the losing end of the system they were living under.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 9, 2014)

Dante said:


> When it came time to stand on the principles (while President as opposed to as Blowhardo-in-Chief), principles he insisted everyone else stand on -- he folded.
> 
> His battles with Chief Justice Marshall and Hamilton had him become unhinged on more than one occasion. Like Reagan, he was more myth than man of his words



Well, he did do some decent lobbying overseas, especially in France after the war, and he also had to deal with the Federalists packing the Courts and Federal government offices after he became President. It would be a decent discussion on who would have been worse, Jefferson, or his opponents winning the elections instead. There wasn't a lot to love among the Federalists, either.


----------



## Dante (Jul 9, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > When it came time to stand on the principles (while President as opposed to as Blowhardo-in-Chief), principles he insisted everyone else stand on -- he folded.
> ...



you mean:
"and he also had to deal with the Federalists packing the Courts and Federal government offices _*before*_ he became President"


----------



## Picaro (Jul 9, 2014)

Dante said:


> you mean:
> "and he also had to deal with the Federalists packing the Courts and Federal government offices _*before*_ he became President"



I mean he had to deal with them *as* President. He was the vice president under Adams, and they knew he proposed not removing people merely based on Party and was trying for a 'meritocracy' in Federal jobs appointments. The Federalists were hoping to take advantage of that by packing Federal courts with judges friendly to them as well as other offices. They did a lot of the packing before he was sworn in and unable to stop them. It was Adams who appointed Marshall, for instance, as well as numerous lower court justices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall

See also ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_John_Adams

I think he appointed around 30 or 40 judges overall. Not sure about other Federal jobs; there is probably a list out there, I just don't feel like looking for it at the moment.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 9, 2014)

NLT said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> ...





*Somerset v Stewart (1772) * (aka Somersett's case, or in State Trials v.XX Sommersett v Steuart) is a famous judgment of the *English Court of King's Bench in 1772, which held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales, though the position elsewhere in the British Empire was left ambiguous.* 


Somerset was freed

Somerset v Stewart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Britain, the 'nefarious trade' and slavery

Britain followed in the footsteps of the Portuguese in voyaging to the west coast of Africa and enslaving Africans. The British participation in what has come to be called the 'nefarious trade' was begun by Sir John Hawkins with the support and investment of Elizabeth I in 1573. * By fair means and foul, Britain outwitted its European rivals and became the premier trader in the enslaved from the seventeenth century onwards, and retained this position till 1807. Britain supplied enslaved African women, men and children to all European colonies in the Americas.*

Britain, slavery and the trade in enslaved Africans, by Marika Sherwood


Slavery in the British Isles existed from before the Roman occupation. Chattel slavery virtually disappeared after the Norman Conquest to be replaced by feudalism and serfdom. *Slavery was finally abolished throughout the British Empire by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, with exceptions provided for the East India Company, Ceylon, and Saint Helena. These exceptions were eliminated in 1843.*


* Forced labour existed between the 17th and 19th centuries in the form of transportation of convicts, and in the workhouse for the poor*

Slavery in the British Isles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 9, 2014)

Picaro said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > I dont believe he was the first president to use federal troops against Americans....that goes to Washington during either the whiskey or the shays rebellion.
> ...



No standing Army, of course he FEDERALIZED 13,000 troops!


----------



## whitehall (Jul 9, 2014)

Ravi said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > There is another manufactured controversy about the Declaration of Independence. The concerns centers around a claim by a liberal college professor that a period was mistakenly inserted into copies. Both issues are ludicrous. Maybe it's time to remind the victims of the sub-standard American education system that the Declaration of Independence is different from the Constitution. The DOI merely states the reasons that the Colonies were severing ties to England. The Constitution, however, is the law of the land.
> ...



Why does he need an excuse?


----------



## Picaro (Jul 9, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> No standing Army, of course he FEDERALIZED 13,000 troops!



This isn't a revelation. 

Of course there wasn't one that large, but there was a small one. Compare Washington's use of locals with Jefferson's Army and Navy enforcing the embargo.



> In April 1789 Washington became the first President under the new  Constitution; on August 7 Congress created the Department of War. There  was no change, however, in either the policy or the personnel         of the department. General Henry Knox, who had succeeded  Washington         as commander of the Army and had been handling military affairs         under the old form of government, remained in charge. Since  there was no navy, a separate department was unnecessary; at first the  War Department included naval affairs under its jurisdiction. Harmar,  who had been given the rank of brigadier general during the  Confederation period, was confirmed in his appointment, as were his  officers; and the existing miniscule Army was taken over intact by the  new government. In August 1789 this force amounted to about 800 officers  and men. All the troops, except the two artillery companies retained  after Shays&#8217; Rebellion, were stationed along the Ohio River in a series  of forts built after 1785.


Chapter 5: American Military History, Volume I


----------



## Picaro (Jul 9, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Why does he need an excuse?



He doesn't, but his fans keep trying to make them.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 9, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > No standing Army, of course he FEDERALIZED 13,000 troops!
> ...



So you wont admit it was the overwhelming strength of 13,000 FEDERALIZED troops that put down the traitorous tax scofflaws who first tested the national government's ability to enforce its laws within the states?


----------



## Picaro (Jul 10, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I have no idea what you think I should 'admit'. Apparently you want to discuss something I didn't say, or you don't want to admit that what Washington did was different than what Jefferson did for some reason. One required local state approval, the other used a Federal Army and a Navy, not local militias.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 10, 2014)

Ravi said:


> I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's likely more a matter of hyperbole than hypocrisy, and a perceived difference between the slave trade and slave holding.


----------



## dcraelin (Jul 10, 2014)

Here is a quote of Jefferson that I think should be very instructive for some of those in modern politics who blindly worship the original Constitution and its framers. 


 Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human.  Thomas Jefferson 

And in Federalist 14, James Madison wondered if it was not the glory of the people of America, that they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons or their own experience?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 10, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Your premise was he used 'state' militias I pointed out it was BECAUSE we had no standing armies, you pointed out we had 800 TOTAL, where the traitors had a few thousand at one point so GW needed OVERWHELMING troop strength to bring in the POWER OF THE CENTRAL GOV'T to  stop the first test of the NATIONAL Gov't!


----------



## Dante (Jul 10, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > you mean:
> ...


Good gawd man, go back to school recently? You are mentioning things that are a given in a discussion like this. What is your point again?


----------



## Dante (Jul 10, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



 [MENTION=30646]Ravi[/MENTION] [MENTION=33974]NLT[/MENTION] 

 thank you [MENTION=49669]Dad2three[/MENTION] for the public spanking


----------



## Dante (Jul 10, 2014)

[MENTION=25684]Picaro[/MENTION] [MENTION=49669]Dad2three[/MENTION]





Picaro said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



*Really?  By what process? do you know?*


----------



## Dante (Jul 10, 2014)

In the "Calling Forth" Act of 1792, Congress exercised its powers under the Militia Clause and delegated to the President the authority to call out the militia and issue it orders when invasion appeared imminent or to suppress insurrections. While the act gave the President a relatively free hand in case of invasion, it constrained his authority in the case of insurrections by requiring that a federal judge certify that the civil authority and the posse comitatus were powerless to meet the exigency. The President had also to order the insurgents to disband before he could mobilize the militia. This was the procedure that President George Washington followed during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. 

Guide to the Constitution


----------



## regent (Jul 10, 2014)

George III had little say in many of Britain's policies but for Jefferson he was the easiest to attack. As in our own politics it is easier to attack one individual than to attack a group and so Jefferson attacked George as Americans attack the president. 
A first law of propaganda is to  attack one well-known individual for things that go wrong and not a group. If a group, make the group singular, and all alike in actions, beliefs and so forth.   
Seldom do we attack Congress and for good reason, many Americans don't know who their congressman is, much less what they have done. It is difficult to hate 535 individuals who spend the day golfing.


----------



## Dante (Jul 10, 2014)

regent said:


> Seldom do we attack Congress and...



what world are you living in?


----------



## jwoodie (Jul 10, 2014)

Blah, blah, blah...   The United States INHERITED slavery from Great Britain as an essential ingredient of agricultural production.  The Founders were in agreement that slavery should be ended, but could not come up with a feasible plan for compensating slave owners and repatriating the freed slaves.  This problem continued until the Civil War, when 600,000 American lives were lost to finally resolve it.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 10, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Blah, blah, blah...   The United States INHERITED slavery from Great Britain as an essential ingredient of agricultural production.  The Founders were in agreement that slavery should be ended, but could not come up with a feasible plan for compensating slave owners and repatriating the freed slaves.  This problem continued until the Civil War, when 600,000 American lives were lost to finally resolve it.



Inherited is no excuse if you read the DOI. Throwing off the moldy old Brits did away with a lot of inherited baggage.

And...the founders were not in agreement that slavery should be ended which is why Jefferson's words that I posted in the Op were struck.

But that is all a distraction. If TJ knew slavery was wrong why did he practice it?


----------



## whitehall (Jul 10, 2014)

Is the issue about slavery or Jefferson or the Declaration of Independence? Sadly the flag that flew off the stern of slave ships was the Union Jack . Strangely the pop-culture historians have no problem with the display of the Union Jack which hasn't changed in three hundred years but is outraged by the Confederate battle flag that only lasted for four years.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 10, 2014)

Dante said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Obviously your previous posts indicate you didn't know. I understand your embarassment. No need to troll in attempting to cover it up.


----------



## dblack (Jul 10, 2014)

Jefferson was pretty obviously a hypocrite. 

So, I guess we oughta go ahead and scrap the Constitution - and all this 'freedom' nonsense.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 10, 2014)

regent said:


> George III had little say in many of Britain's policies but for Jefferson he was the easiest to attack. As in our own politics it is easier to attack one individual than to attack a group and so Jefferson attacked George as Americans attack the president.
> A first law of propaganda is to  attack one well-known individual for things that go wrong and not a group. If a group, make the group singular, and all alike in actions, beliefs and so forth.



He was the easiest target; not popular at home and his ministers had plenty of enemies, so yes, George was the natural choice.



> Seldom do we attack Congress and for good reason, many Americans don't know who their congressman is, much less what they have done. It is difficult to hate 535 individuals who spend the day golfing.



lol. But they love it when their own guy brings home the bacon; it's 'those other guys' that are the problem ... 

Ron Paul certainly didn't let mere principle get in the way of getting his district's 'fair share', and neither did Gingrich or any of the others turn any pork down in the name of reducing spending. Paul was in the Top 5 of the porksters list for a long time, kind of odd for a 'Libertarian conservative', but of course there are plenty of excuses and hand waves for him from the fever swamps. I'm sure Rand will heed his father's advice and treasure his expertise in arranging that for his own state.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 10, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Actually I said it was a technicality, but it's still a state militia, and not a Federal army as was the case under Jefferson. I don't see what is so hard to understand about it. 

I pointed out there was a small army because you said we didn't have one at all, which wasn't entirely true, hence the 'pointing out'.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 10, 2014)

Dante said:


> In the "Calling Forth" Act of 1792, Congress exercised its powers under the Militia Clause and delegated to the President the authority to call out the militia and issue it orders when invasion appeared imminent or to suppress insurrections. While the act gave the President a relatively free hand in case of invasion,* it constrained his authority in the case of insurrections by requiring that a federal judge certify that the civil authority and the posse comitatus were powerless to meet the exigency. The President had also to order the insurgents to disband before he could mobilize the militia.* This was the procedure that President George Washington followed during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.
> 
> Guide to the Constitution



And you think this contradicts something I said? You don't read well.  They're state militia units, not Federal troops, as was the case under  Jefferson.

In other words, the states had to establish that when  they were unable to deal with such things with their own militia units, they could appeal to the Federal government to bring in other states' militia units. Washington called on the militias of neighboring states to help quell the rebellions. These state militias already existed and had organizations in place; they weren't created out of thin air by Washington.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 11, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Got it, You enjoy wordsmithing over honesty. The US had no SUBSTANTIAL standing armies, AND GW FEDERALIZED (as in BIG federal Gov't INTRUSION)  militias to suppress the TRAITORS 'small Gov't ' guys!


----------



## Picaro (Jul 11, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I haven't said anything 'dishonest'; you just intentionally misread what I said on it. Washington called on the governors of New Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania to call up their state militias. You can call them 'Federal troops' all day, but they will still be state militias and not Federal troops, and different from Jefferson's use of Federal Army and Navy troops.

And, the 'rebels' had legitimate grievances in any case; it was an unfair tax.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 12, 2014)

From Forrest McDonald's *The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson*, in a footnote in Chapter 7 on Jefferson and Congress re expanding the Army and Navy pursuant to the Enforcement Act and the need to use Federal troops to enforce his embargo:



> (7) Malone, _Second Term_, p.585. It should be added that, given Jefferson's unreserved commitment to enforce the embargo, the administration had little option but to resort to armed force; for Treasury agents and marshalls of the federal courts, the only regular law enforcement personnel of the federal government, were quite inadequate to the task. President Washington had established a precedent for using troops,, both for enforcing the neutrality proclamation of 1793 and in suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. *There was, however, a crucial difference between those cases and the enforcement of the embargo: Washington had called upon the state governors for voluntary assistance, and they had complied by supplying militia troops. This course of action was justified by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which required state officials to help enforce the national law; and essentially the same course was endorsed in the 1808 act outlawing the slave trade. Use of Federal troops in the routine enforcement of an act of Congress, however, was without precedent, and was in spirit and substance drastically different from the use of militiamen with the authorization of state governors.*


p. 175.

It was also very different in that Washington's excursion didn't result in fighting, while Jefferson's Federal troops fired on Americans and killed and wounded some.


----------



## dblack (Jul 12, 2014)

I guess I just don't care. The contradictions in Jefferson's personality have little to do with the value of the ideals he promoted. Ironically, the ideals he promoted hastened the downfall of the flawed cultural norms that he relied on. That's the beauty of ideas. They can transcend the personal and elevate all of us, despite our shortcomings and hypocrisy.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> I guess I just don't care. The contradictions in Jefferson's personality have little to do with the value of the ideals he promoted. Ironically, the ideals he promoted hastened the downfall of the flawed cultural norms that he relied on. That's the beauty of ideas. They can transcend the personal and elevate all of us, despite our shortcomings and hypocrisy.



I give him kudos for his literary abilities, and his inspired diplomatic achievements; even counting some of the failures of the latter he managed some great things, even if he sucked as a 'libertarian'. He was also a much better choice than the alternatives, the Federalists, that ran against him by a long shot.


----------



## Dante (Jul 13, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Jesus, I eat and drink this crap


----------



## Dante (Jul 13, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > In the "Calling Forth" Act of 1792, Congress exercised its powers under the Militia Clause and delegated to the President the authority to call out the militia and issue it orders when invasion appeared imminent or to suppress insurrections. While the act gave the President a relatively free hand in case of invasion,* it constrained his authority in the case of insurrections by requiring that a federal judge certify that the civil authority and the posse comitatus were powerless to meet the exigency. The President had also to order the insurgents to disband before he could mobilize the militia.* This was the procedure that President George Washington followed during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.
> ...



Federalizing troops makes the troops, federal. They fight in the name of the federal government


----------



## Picaro (Jul 13, 2014)

Dante said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Well, keep plugging at it, and maybe one day you'll get it down enough to not make glaring mistakes and have to resort to snarky juvenile trolling, and able to conduct adult discussions about this 'crap'.


----------



## Dante (Jul 13, 2014)

Picaro said:


> From Forrest McDonald's *The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson*, in a footnote in Chapter 7 on Jefferson and Congress re expanding the Army and Navy pursuant to the Enforcement Act and the need to use Federal troops to enforce his embargo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Use of Federal troops in the routine enforcement of an act of Congress, however, was without precedent" - precedent?



Some historian without a clue speaks of precedent here? How old was the USA?


----------



## Dante (Jul 13, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



adult discussions?

nah, I prefer informed discussions


----------



## Peach (Jul 13, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> ...



Jefferson was conflicted his entire adult life over slavery, did free some, let others walk away, offered Sally Hemmings, his wife's sister, whom he loved after his wife's death*, her freedom in Paris, and...........remained heavily in debt most of the time. Mortgages on slaves were the most common in the era and location, who wanted another mansion, the wealrhy plantation owners had their own. SLAVES were worth more than buildings, slaves produced goods. 

*Martha Jefferson's place in history is often over looked, she despised slavery from childhood, loved her half sister, thought slavery had made their father a wretched man, and on her deathbed gave Hemmings a gold locket so that Hemmings could buy her own freedom, it is said Hemmings could not part with it, out of love for her sister.

Remember also, workers in free states were often treated as badly as slaves. Beaten, starved, and when injured, tossed into the street. They could not be sold, but that did not mean they were looked upon as more than objects.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2014)

Oh, Picaro, stop the whimpering of "Your's and Jake's juvenile emotional needs to disparage people they disagree with says more about you than than it does about those you're weakly attempting to dismiss. Go play in the Fever Swamps with the other kids; you'll be happier there."  

One, Jefferson was a conflicted Enlightenment country gentry man raised to view slavery as a necessary evil at the same time while desiring to end it.

Two, Jefferson indeed made various attempts politically to and opined publicly about how to end the system.

Nevertheless, he freed only his five children.  He could not free the mother, Sally, the half sister of his dead wife, because Sally was part of Martha' estate that passed to her daughter.

The daughter hated Sally and allowed her to "flee" beyond the Ohio to join her children.

Picaro, please show some maturity and stop your inappropriate emotionalism.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 13, 2014)

Peach said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


An honest person wouldn't have kept slaves, knowing it was wrong. Freeing just the ones you love isn't a vote in someone's favor. A better person would have lived up to what was right, personal feelings aside.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 14, 2014)

An either or statement, "An honest person wouldn't have kept slaves, knowing it was wrong."

You have no idea what you would have done if you had lived then.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 14, 2014)

Sure I do. The same thing I would do now. Not keep slaves.


----------



## Peach (Jul 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> An either or statement, "An honest person wouldn't have kept slaves, knowing it was wrong."
> 
> You have no idea what you would have done if you had lived then.



Surrounded by your peers that would denounce you, ostrasize you, and maybe kill you if you stood for a different ideal.


----------



## Peach (Jul 14, 2014)

Jefferson on slavery:

1777-1779. (Revisal of Virginia Laws-Jefferson's emancipation plan). "The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-&#8364;&#8216;one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, seeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength...."[6]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 14, 2014)

Washington's peers did not do any of those things when his will freed his slaves, but then again he was Washington.


----------



## Peach (Jul 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Washington's peers did not do any of those things when his will freed his slaves, but then again he was Washington.



Yes, and did not have Jefferson's desire to be part of history; Washington preferred his farm to politics. Martha actually freed the slaves though. Washington appears to be "above" the crowd in that era.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 14, 2014)

Peach said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Washington's peers did not do any of those things when his will freed his slaves, but then again he was Washington.
> ...



Yup.  He tried to be impartial in his first term with Jefferson and Hamilton.  No fun for GW with those two yahoos.


----------



## Dante (Jul 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, Picaro, stop the whimpering of "Your's and Jake's juvenile emotional needs to disparage people they disagree with says more about you than than it does about those you're weakly attempting to dismiss. Go play in the Fever Swamps with the other kids; you'll be happier there."
> 
> One, Jefferson was a conflicted Enlightenment country gentry man raised to view slavery as a necessary evil at the same time while desiring to end it.
> 
> ...



Jefferson often espoused ideals and principles he'd demand others follow to their logical ends no matter the price -- all while when tested in the real world, Thomas himself often failed at. Thomas was a self-appointed tribune of the people. He suffered delusions of an Aglo-Saxon, agricultural society. There was always in his ideas this hairbrained, based on no real evidence, utopia that never existed. Many letters and commentary from his time point this out -- often by his closet friends/confidants.

Jefferson is one of my least favorite Founders and Framers precisely because of the great myths his family built around him after his death.  Think of Paul Revere and -- what was his co-riders name, and who finished the ride?


----------



## Dante (Jul 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Washington was as much as poser as the rest of them. Sitting in the Continental Congress preening and working behind the scenes. That said, Washington often favored Hamilton and his ideas over those of Jefferson and his cabal


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2014)

Washington did come down in favor of Hamilton, eventually, particularly since AH got TJ and JM to pass the Washington DC law that allowed GW, as the director of the district's public works, to create a national city to himself.


----------



## Dante (Jul 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Washington did come down in favor of Hamilton, eventually, particularly since AH got TJ and JM to pass the Washington DC law that allowed GW, as the director of the district's public works, to create a national city to himself.




cute, but drawing correlations is not providing proof or truth.

GW had a personal relationship with Hamilton and enormous respect for Hamilton's brilliance and more


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 15, 2014)

[MENTION=30646]Ravi[/MENTION]: Not any more or less than people today who want all people to have homes,
but won't give their homes to charity because they are mortgaged to the banks as slaves were, and used as collateral as well.

Not any more or less than people today who yell about minimum wage and slavery,
yet continue to purchase electronics and other products made with Chinese slave labor.

Yes, Jefferson and other slave owners were criticized for these things
1. mortgaging slaves as property where they had to work off the debt because technically the banks owned them not the property owner
2. arguing that the Black Slaves were not educated or able to live independently in society and were better off kept and taken care of by the property owners (he did provide education to his slaves, but felt they were better off shipped back to Africa rather than
try to integrate them into American society)
3. in general, pushing the idea that property owners were fit to make decisions in govt, and people who were not educated or experienced in ownership were not equal

These problems still exist today.

So Jefferson is no more a hypocrite than others today who aren't doing enough to address these SAME equality issues. People do NOT equally own land and do NOT equally have representation in govt or protection in courts. The problem is made worse with corporations acting as collective entities without check but with greater resources and influence than an individual, while defending rights and freedoms as a private person.

The hypocrisy is the same. We still do not provide means for people to learn to manage their own property and govt, but keep them enslaved to those in power who aren't investing in solutions that would equalize and liberate others. They keep investing in power games to play politics back and forth which is merely enslaving taxpayers in greater debt!




Ravi said:


> I was reminded today that in the original draft of the DOI, the following words (penned by Jefferson), were included:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

norwegen said:


> The founders were liberal.



if they were they were liberals who supported very very limited govt, exactly th eopposite of modern liberals!! In fact many like Patrick Henry wanted to stay with the Articles


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Ravi said:


> Sure I do. The same thing I would do now. Not keep slaves.



Of course you were not born owning slaves so you cant say what you would have done. It was illegal to free slaves in VA and especially illegal when you were in debt as Jefferson was. In the end no one earth did more to free people on earth  than Jefferson except perhaps Reagan.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Is old Tommy the world's biggest hypocrite?



yes but in a good way like the parent addicted to smoking who rants at raves at his kids not to smoke.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 29, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Sure I do. The same thing I would do now. Not keep slaves.
> ...



You seem delusional.


----------



## regent (Jul 29, 2014)

It is often difficult to see evil when tied to a profit. 
Regent.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 29, 2014)

Ravi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



and, as a typical liberal you seem to lack the IQ to support what you say.


----------

