Posted on 11/16/2024 1:02:12 PM PST by ProgressingAmerica
Thomas Jefferson was an abolitionist.
I am well aware that the above statement is going to piss off quite a many. Ask me if I care. Most of them will be progressives anyways.
Today's notable release is the documentation regarding the deal Thomas Jefferson made with James Lemen, a Baptist Preacher who made it his mission to head into the new Northwest Territory and spread the good gospel of slavery abolition. At Jefferson's request, of course. Click here for the text of the documentation click here for the audio book recording of that text. Our Founding Fathers deserve every benefit of the doubt they can be given, because they truely were great men, great people, they did great things, and yes, they were on the correct side of history.
I bet most of you have never even heard of James Lemen. Yes, that is on purpose: such is the state of American history after progressives have ravaged American history through their schools and their books for over 120 years.
I’m no historian, but from everything I’ve read Jefferson despised slavery and wanted to see it end.
Ping!
Sometimes wonderful things appear every now and then. There’s currently a Bastiat book being worked on I’ll ping you guys when that gets completed too.
Add a few others also, another friendly, no reply necessary.
That is my knowledge as well. (if/when it came up. Slavery was NOT the biggest issue of the day)
Early years as a legislator. Anti slavery
Declaration author. Anti slavery (even if, by the hands of others, it is removed. HE, Jefferson, did his job. Consistently)
Years as a governor. Anti slavery
Years as president. Anti slavery
Years in between as negotiator, advisor, activist, author, and other scenarios:
Anti slavery.
I have never seen anybody produce at any time any instance where Thomas Jefferson placed himself on the side of defending and even worse, promoting the goodness of the institution of slavery. But conversely, time and again he works - however futilely - against it throughout his entire life.
Thanks for the ping.
Thank you very much.
Yes, the ongoing revisionist history by the Progressives and others is atrocious.
Slavery was strictly forbidden in the Northwest Territory. And who devised the plan to organize the Northwest Territory?
Jefferson.
Many of the settlers in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were from slaveholding states so if they had been allowed to bring slaves with them those states might well have become slave states. That would have changed American history for the worse. I think in Illinois there was a proposal to allow slavery after it became a state which was defeated by a 4-3 margin despite slavery never having been legal there.
Might as well get this out of the way, so when I reference this book in the future none of you can claim that you are surprised to see it.
I would like to offer an olive branch to you guys though. What books (And I’m going to insist, pre-Civil War) might you be interested in seeing transformed into an audio book so that it has new life? I’m genuinely curious.
Let it be stated, I asked first.
In theory. In practice, he was not.
ProgressingAmerica: "Thomas Jefferson was an abolitionist."DiogenesLamp: "In theory. In practice, he was not."
Certainly, by 1860 standards, Jefferson was a radical abolitionist because he:
Like nearly all of our Founders, Jefferson considered slavery a necessary evil which should be eventually abolished -- gradually, peacefully and with compensation for slaveholders.
That idea was still very much alive when Jefferson died in 1825, but within just a few years after -- by the 1830s -- had been entirely abandoned by most Southerners.
I excitedly await your response to Jefferson’s deal with James Lemen.
Thank you.
Earlier, I made the comment (copied and pasted into the bottom for convenience.) regarding Jefferson’s well-documented life.
In addition to your in-depth out response regarding Lemen, could you please provide:
1) Any evidence of Jefferson’s (as a legislator in the Burgesses) passionate fight IN FAVOR OF the dominance of slavery.
2) Any evidence of Jefferson’s (as Virginia Governor) passionate fight IN FAVOR OF the dominance of slavery.
3) Any evidence of Jefferson’s (as POTUS) passionate fight IN FAVOR OF the dominance of slavery.
4) Any evidence of Jefferson’s (as any other role; negotiator, advisor, activist, author) passionate fight IN FAVOR OF the dominance of slavery.
What were Jefferson’s thought provoking words promoting the goodness of the institution of slavery as important for the future of the United States? and why the legislation would preserve it?
Any 1 of 4 would be sufficient. I’m just asking for any legislative evidence, of any kind. Decades in public life.
(previous comment)
Early years as a legislator. Anti slavery
Declaration author. Anti slavery (even if, by the hands of others, it is removed. HE, Jefferson, did his job. Consistently)
Years as a governor. Anti slavery
Years as president. Anti slavery
Years in between as negotiator, advisor, activist, author, and other scenarios:
Anti slavery.
It is somewhat incredible that a lifelong slave owner such as Thomas Jefferson is considered to have been staunch abolitionist who fought a lifelong struggle for the cause of the abolition of slavery.
The great conundrum of the age was what to do with the slaves if they were freed. The laws of northern states of so-called gradual emancipation did not serve to create a population of free blacks amongst them, but to move their slave population south.
Allen T. Rice, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time, New York, 1888, pg 61
Few subjects have been more debated and less understood than the Proclamation of Emancipation. Mr. Lincoln himself opposed to the measure, and when he very reluctantly issued his preliminary proclamation in Septermber 1862, he wished it distinctly understood that the deportation of the slaves was, in his mind, inseparably connected with the policy. Like Mr. Clay and other prominent leaders of the old Whig party, he believed in colonization, and that the separation of the two races was necessary to the welfare of both. He was at that time pressing upon the attention of Congress a scheme of colonization in Chiriqui, in Central America, which Senator Pomoroy espoused with great zeal, and in which he had the favor of a majority of the Cabinet, including Secretary Smith, who warmly endorsed the project.
During the Civil War, Lincoln offered a solution for the northern states which feared a mass migration of freed slaves to their states.
CW 5:534-35, President Lincoln, December 1, 1862, Annual Message to Congress [State of the Union]
Heretofore colored people, to some extent, have fled north from bondage; and now, perhaps, from both bondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will give them wages at least until new laborers can be procured; and the freed men, in turn, will gladly give their labor for the wages, till new homes can be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race. This proposition can be trusted on the mutual interests involved. And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?
It should be noted that the so-called "compact" could have had nothing to do with the then non-existent state of Illinois, but only with the territory ceded by Virginia, the Virginia county of Illinois, where slavery pre-existed the so-called "compact" and continued to exist.
As noted in Wikipedia, "The Illinois' Constitution of 1848 banned slavery, section 16 of its Declaration of Rights specifying, "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the State, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." Subsequent legislation, however, led to one of the most restrictive Black Code systems in the nation until the American Civil War. The Illinois Black Code of 1853 (officially, "An Act to Prevent the Immigration of Free Negros into this State") prohibited any Black persons from outside of the state from staying in the state for more than ten days, subjecting Black emigrants who remain beyond the ten days to arrest, detention, a $50 (~$1,831 in 2023) fine, potential debt labor for those who could not pay, or deportation."
Also: "The Northwest Ordinance (1787) banned slavery in Illinois and the rest of the Northwest Territory. Nonetheless, slavery remained a contentious issue, through the period when Illinois was part of the Indiana Territory and the Illinois Territory and some slaves remained in bondage after statehood until their gradual emancipation by the Illinois Supreme Court. Thus the history of slavery in Illinois covers several sometimes overlapping periods: French (c. 1660s–1764); British (c. 1763–1783); Virginia (c. 1778–1785); United States Northwest Territory (1787–1800), Indiana Territory (1800–1809), Illinois Territory (1809–1818) and the State of Illinois (after 1818)."
Jefferson, as many others, opposed slavery in the territory ceded by Virginia to the United States. This was not to be confused with the abolition of slavery in Virginia or on the plantation at Monticello. They had no apparent solution to the existing problem of the black population and desired to limit the growth of what they perceived as a problem. They were not fighting for the creation of a large addition to the citizenry.
His son, James Lemen Jr., did know Abraham Lincoln. Article here.
Yet that is in fact, in general, the undeniable truth. Any opportunity that arose while a public official, Jefferson opposed the institution of slavery. The fun thing is is that what if we reverse your statement? Then it is non-existent:
"It is understandable that a lifelong slave owner such as Thomas Jefferson is considered to have been staunch promoter who fought a lifelong struggle for the cause of the promotion of slavery."
Note the words changed. The statement in red cannot stand. That's what makes the Jefferson hater's position untenable, because Jeff. definitely took a position on the issue of the institution.
You replied to my post containing the questions, so I know you saw them. If you can not answer those questions, then the fact remains that Jefferson's record as an abolitionist is quite untarnished. The facts are this:
* Early years as a legislator. Anti slavery
* Declaration author. Anti slavery (even if, by the hands of others, it is removed. HE, Jefferson, did his job. Consistently)
* Years as a governor. Anti slavery
* Years as president. Anti slavery
Years in between as negotiator, advisor, activist, author, and other scenarios:
Anti slavery.
I have never seen anybody produce at any time any instance where Thomas Jefferson placed himself on the side of defending and even worse, promoting the goodness of the institution of slavery. But conversely, time and again he works - however futilely - against it throughout his entire life.
And let the record show, Woodpusher had no such evidence to the contrary to provide either.
Why would such a lover of slavery make a deal with James Lemen to promote the gospel of the abolition of slavery?
Note the words changed. The statement in red cannot stand. That's what makes the Jefferson hater's position untenable, because Jeff. definitely took a position on the issue of the institution.
Noting that Thomas Jefferson was not an abolitionist does not express Jefferson hate. It merely acknowledges the truth about Jefferson by his words and deeds. It is very doubtful that the slaves on Jefferson's plantation, or his runaways; for whom Jefferson offered a reward, thought of him as an abolitionist.
Can you identify one instance in which Jefferson actually advocated for the abolition of slavery in Virginia? Quote with citation please.
Anything not about Virginia did not advocate for the abolition of slavery in Virginia. Anything said about restricting the importation of new slaves was not about abolition.
Jefferson's plan for gradual emancipation included removing the freed slaves from the United States when they reached adulthood. Jefferson's plan was to get rid of the black population.
A far more emphatic expression deriding slavers and slavery would be the following.
In closing arguments, the famous defense counsel who is not particularly known as an abolitionist, argued:
There is no law that forbids us to speak of slavery as we think of it. Any man has a right to publish his opinions on that subject whenever he pleases. It is a subject of national concern, and may at all times be freely discussed. Mr. Gruber did quote the language of our great act of national independence, and insisted on the principles contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those masters, who, in the exercise of power, are deaf to the calls of humanity; and he warned them of the evils they might bring upon themselves. He did speak with abhorrence of those reptiles, who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by tearing the husband from the wife — the infant from the bosom of the mother: and this I am instructed was the head and front of his offending.
- - - - -
I have never seen anybody produce at any time any instance where Thomas Jefferson placed himself on the side of defending and even worse, promoting the goodness of the institution of slavery. But conversely, time and again he works - however futilely - against it throughout his entire life.And let the record show, Woodpusher had no such evidence to the contrary to provide either.
As for Mr. Lemen:
When, therefore, the French masters appealed to Gen. St. Clair, in 1787, to protect them against the loss of the principal part of their wealth, represented by their slaves, he had to face the alternative of the loss of these substantial citizens by migration with their slaves to the Spanish side of the river. And, in order to pacify these petitioners, St. Clair gave it as his opinion that the prohibition of slavery in the Ordinance was not retroactive, and hence did not affect the rights of the French masters in their previously acquired slave property. As this view accorded with the "compact" contained in the Virginia deed of cession, it was sanctioned by the old Congress, and was later upheld by the new Federal Government; and this construction of the Ordinance of 1787 continued to prevail in Illinois until 1845, when the State Supreme Court decreed that the prohibition was absolute, and that, consequently, slavery in any form had never had any legal sanction in Illinois since 1787.It does not appear that Mr. Lemen took any active measures against this construction of the antislavery ordinance at the time. He was, indeed, himself a petitioner, with other American settlers on the "Congress lands" in Illinois, for the recognition of their claims, which were menaced by the general prohibition of settlement then in effect.
When faced with the possibility of rich slave owners leaving Illinois to protect their slave property, Mr. Lemen got a new religion and joined the petition to protect the rights of the slave owners.
Your source material states the following disclaimers:
NOTEThe materials here presented were collected in connection with the preparation of a history of the first generation of Illinois Baptists. The narrative introduction is printed substantially as delivered at a special meeting of the Chicago Historical Society, and, with the collection of documents, is published in response to inquiries concerning the so-called "Lemen Family Notes," and in compliance with the request for a contribution to the publications of this Society. It is hoped that the publication may serve to elicit further information concerning the alleged "Notes," the existence of which has become a subject of more or less interest to historians. The compiler merely presents the materials at their face value, without assuming to pass critical judgment upon them.
[...]
How much of the current tradition is fact and how much fiction is hard to determine, as so little of the original documentary material is now available. The collection of materials herewith presented consists of what purport to be authentic copies of the original documents in question. They are put in this form in the belief that their significance warrants it, and in the hope that their publication may elicit further light on the subject.
Your source presents the so-called compact in air quotes thusly,
Such was the origin and nature of the so-called "Jefferson-Lemen Secret Anti-Slavery Compact," the available evidence concerning which will be given at the conclusion of this paper.
Your source states that it presents unreliable information from unverifiable purported copies of original documents, and they cannot tell how much is fact and how much is fiction.
Do you have any RELIABLE source?
Very informative thank u
And
"Jefferson's plan for gradual emancipation included removing the freed slaves from the United States when they reached adulthood."
What am I supposed to show you that you already know?
The provided image is not related to the institution of slavery, it is only personal matters of Jefferson. Next.
"Your source states that it presents unreliable information...."
The Chicago Historical Society found no reason to discount the material, so the word unreliable is inappropriate.
The word you are grasping for is "unverified". Press CTRL+F, the word "unreliable" is not present.
The fact is, this isn't Dan Rather around here, nor is it historians who managed to agree to a DNA test when such DNA doesn't exist. Here's the thing, given that Jefferson never fought at any time on the side of preserving the institution of slavery, the pattern certainly matches.
We aren't talking about someone who openly argued for "slavery as a positive good" and all of a sudden here comes this Lemen documentation - this is without merit. It does not match the pattern.
The author of the Northwest Ordinances with its heavy abolitionism sending a guy to go preach abolitionism - entirely believable. Now, yes, the documentation is unverified. But you're alone to say unreliable.
You can't even point to a time when Jefferson called slavery a positive good and the guy spent what, 50 years in the public light legislating and negotiating and all sorts of it.
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.