The Thomas Jefferson conundrum

[NLT]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[whitehall]

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]

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]

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]

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 technicality, but a revealing one.

...

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

Hmm...

 

[Dante]

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?

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]

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 technicality, but a revealing one.

...

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

Hmm...

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]

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 technicality, but a revealing one.

...

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

Hmm...

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Picaro]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[whitehall]

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?

Why does he need an excuse?

 

[Picaro]

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’ Rebellion, were stationed along the Ohio River in a series of forts built after 1785.

Chapter 5: American Military History, Volume I

 

[Picaro]

Why does he need an excuse?

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

 

[Dad2three]

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’ Rebellion, were stationed along the Ohio River in a series of forts built after 1785.

Chapter 5: American Military History, Volume I

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?