The Thomas Jefferson conundrum

[Picaro]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

John Marshall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also ...

List of federal judges appointed by John Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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?

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

Jesus, I eat and drink this crap

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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

 

[Picaro]

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?

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

Jesus, I eat and drink this crap

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'.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

"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?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Jesus, I eat and drink this crap

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'.

adult discussions?

nah, I prefer informed discussions

 

[Peach]

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?

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 “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.”

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]

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]

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

.

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?

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 “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.”

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Peach]

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]

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-€‘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]

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

 

[Peach]

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]

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.

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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

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