Posted on 11/18/2017 6:36:43 AM PST by iowamark
Don't just take my opinion. Trust in what Thomas Jefferson wrote. Read again, for the first time, the original draft of the DOI.
It includes this grievance: “He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property”
This reference to “treasonable insurrections” referred to the actions of the loyalists and is sometimes confused by first-time readers of the DOI with the term “domestic insurrections,” a euphemism for slave insurrections.
The entire passage relating to the treasonable insurrections of loyalists was stricken from the DOI. Somewhere in his writings Thomas Jefferson explains why Congress did not want to deliberately offend the English people (as opposed to the King.)
Surely, then, since you maintain that “domestic insurrection” is a euphemism for “slave insurrection” (as used by Jefferson in the DOI) you can furnish the accounts of the specific slave insurrections that Jefferson was referencing?
I seem to recall singing, “......bopped her off the bean with a rotten tangerine......”
I thought it would be alright to cite modern historians because in your post 343 you cite an article written in 2003 as the single source of support for your claim that . . . well, I'm losing track of what you do claim.
Anyway, the article you cited was named “Insurrections, Domestic” and contained this sentence that ostensibly relates to Thomas Jefferson's “domestic insurrections:”
“No section of the country was spared the largely urban anti-abortion rioting that began in the mid-1980s and continued at the start of the twenty-first century.”
Why is it you can cite modern sources that do not relate in any sensible way to Jefferson's writings but I can not cite modern historians that do?
If you had access to all Jefferson's papers and could follow him from draft to draft, you might say, "Ah, yes, this is what happened to his long strange attack on slavery. It somehow got condensed into a sentence about 'domestic insurrections,'" but if you were the average reader of the time -- or even of today -- you might not reach that conclusion, because most of the stuff about slavery was removed.
It's a strange passage. Wasn't the Revolution itself a kind of "insurrection"? Were there really royalist "insurrections" against it? How many actual slave revolts were "excited" by the king and his army and officials? Or was just running off considered to be an "insurrection" by Jefferson?
I also don't remember any "urban anti-abortion rioting" in the last century or this one. I also never heard of the "anti-abortion riots of 1834 and 1835 (more than a dozen)." It looks like the writer (or editor or publisher) wanted to say "anti-abolition" or "anti-abolitionist" and got confused (or spellchecked). While the article makes a good point that "domestic insurrections" aren't necessarily slave uprisings, that doesn't mean it's authoritative about everything.
“Surely, then, since you maintain that “domestic insurrection” is a euphemism for “slave insurrection” (as used by Jefferson in the DOI) you can furnish the accounts of the specific slave insurrections that Jefferson was referencing?”
If I can’t, then what?
If I can, then what?
Will you then question Jefferson’s reference: “He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People . . .” Will you ask: What are the specific names of the Officers in those Swarms?
Will you then question Jefferson’s reference: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.” Will you ask: What are the accounts of the specific Invasions and are there records of those invasions
in the Journals of Congress?
Jefferson wrote in the DOI about “our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren . . .” Will you now ask to be furnished the “accounts of the specific” names of the supposed Friends that were executed?”
If I can’t furnish those specifics, then what?
If I can furnish those specifics, then what?
When you say “reposting this” what do you mean?
Not a trick question. There's been a lot of hay put on the ground and I'm not sure exactly what “this” means.
I agree with you here. The post (Brother Joe #343) was totally not credible. Confused as you say.
I only brought it up again - - in a very, very understated way - - to challenge my good friend Brother Joe about the stuff he grabs off the Internet and puts forward when he gets his upper body parts caught in the wringer. I love that man.
You have proposed a very interesting interpretation. I merely ask to see your data on that.
HaaHaa - I see what you did there...;’}
Oh, so that's what you are groping for. I answered that in my post 323. It must have been the day you missed school with the ground itch.
To understand the approved DOI, you need to read the early drafts.
“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. 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 has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”
Note well Jefferson’s words: “he is now exciting those VERY PEOPLE to rise in arms among us (emphasis added).”
And what “very people” is he talking about?
Indians? No.
Other British citizens? No.
Slaves? Yes.
Read it again. For the first time.
Citing a stricken propaganda section of one early draft does not explain what is meant by “domestic insurrection” in the final draft. Can you give me a reference to any slave insurrection that Jefferson might have obliquely been using a euphemism for? ....... or not? You are implying that there were active slave insurrections, against which the writers of the DOI were complaining. Where, what, who, when, why, were these Slave insurrections? You make the blatant claim, surely you can back it up?
That Jefferon's "domestic insurrections" referred to actual insurrections of loyalists against patriot governments, not to runaway slaves joining Lord Dunmore's British army.
And that 2003 article in my link was simply giving examples of what is considered a "domestic insurrection", including slave revolts.
However, there were no British "excited" slave revolts in 1776, nor did Lord Dunmore call for slaves to revolt.
jeffersondem: "Why is it you can cite modern sources that do not relate in any sensible way to Jefferson's writings but I can not cite modern historians that do?"
Cite whoever you wish, but the quote which could cinch your case would be from Jefferson himself legitimately saying, in effect:
So, in a nut-shell, here's the case against Jefferson's "domestic insurrections" = slave revolts:
Nothing "confused" about it, beyond the spellings of "abortion" and "abolition".
Otherwise, it's a simple definition & examples listed of "domestic insurrections", including, secondarily, slave revolts.
But there were no slave revolts at the time of Jefferson's D.O.I.
Nor did Lord Dunmore call for ("excite") slaves to revolt.
Of course, there's no doubt that Jefferson's famous deleted paragraph referred to slaves and Lord Dunmore's call for them to join the British army.
But the question here is whether those deleted words were then summarized in the included sentence about "domestic insurrections"?
jeffersondem thinks they were, I think not, for reasons I've now restated several times.
“You make the blatant claim, surely you can back it up?”
Your taunt supposes that I do not have access to even more information supporting my statements.
There are sportsmen that like to hear the line sing as a small fish pulls a length through the drag knowing once the hook is set in the jaw all that remains is to reel him in and enjoy the spectacle.
Now you know what, even if you don’t know when.
I have asked you three times to show me your “more information”. What’s the hold-up? That was strike three. (See the double entendre?). Perhaps you have done further research in the meanwhile. Let’s have it. I won’t be asking again.
Let's try to reel in some line here.
Jefferson writes in an early draft of the DOI:
“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. 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 has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”
This passage contains at least two grievances; let's look at the one where Jefferson writes of “those very people”, “rise in arms”, and murder(ing).
To me, Jefferson is writing here about slaves rising in arms and murdering their masters.
Can you and I agree on that much?
Then you would understand it differently than people would have understood it at the time. When were those early draft first released to the public?
"Domestic" has different meanings. "Domestic affairs" doesn't refer to sex with relatives or servants, but to inland, as opposed to foreign matters. If a nineteenth century American wanted to talk about an uprising of slaves, he or she might use the phrase "servile insurrection."
Eighteenth century is a little trickier, but the phrase "domestic insurrection" first came into usage in English in 1745. Why was that? You can look up what happened in that year in Britain.
In American English, the phrase "domestic insurrection spiked in frequency in the 1770s, again in the late 1780s, again around 1800. That last might refer to the Haitian Revolution or an foiled slave uprising in Virginia, but also to the attempted revolution in Ireland.
It's less likely that others had much to do with slavery. More likely, it was the Revolution and then Shays's Rebellion. You can find the phrase "domestic insurrections" in the Federalist Papers, and it's not used in connection with slave uprising. I believe Washington also used the phrase in connection with the Whiskey Rebellion.
"Domestic insurrection" had its highest frequency in the 1860s, but the phrase "servile insurrection," introduced around 1797, was far more frequent.
“Then you would understand it differently than people would have understood it at the time. When were those early draft first released to the public?”
It is my understanding a committee consisting of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Sherman and Robert R. Livingston was appointed to prepare a declaration of independence on June 11, 1776.
Between June 11 and July 4, when Congress approved the final wording, there was, reportedly, a Composition Draft, a Rough Draft, and a Fair Copy - maybe more, I don’t know.
On the night of July 4 a printer made copies of the approved DOI and began public distribution.
From June 11 to July 4 is a time period of 23 days by my count. Are you thinking the English language changed significantly during the 23 days when the drafts may have leaked and the final printed version became public?
I’m not following your thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.