New audiobook release: The Jefferson-Lemen Compact, by Willard C. MacNaul

"Can you identify one instance in which Jefferson actually advocated for the abolition of slavery in Virginia?"

And

"Jefferson's plan for gradual emancipation included removing the freed slaves from the United States when they reached adulthood."

You know. Logic has struck me like a lightning bolt about your contradiction here.

I'm asking you for plans about Jefferson's grand design for the goodness of slavery.

And what do you offer to the table? "Jefferson's plan for gradual emancipation"

Those are your words. You typed them. Read them.

I did almost miss it, that you entirely contradicted yourself and did the exact opposite of my request. This pretty much is the answer to my query.

You can't point to any instance in his record as legislator, governor, president, negotiator, advisor, etc etc etc. Don't feel bad, nobody ever has anything about Jefferson's record, all they have is some personal matters of Jefferson's life.

Jefferson never fought for the institution of slavery. He always, always fought against it. Many of those fights were open in broad daylight/sunshine. As you yourself brought to the table.

I excitedly await your response to Jefferson’s deal with James Lemen. Thank you.

Morality is easy when you don't have to pay for your beliefs. Jefferson obviously thought he couldn't afford to do what he considered to be right.

I will add, in my opinion, Jefferson was the most significant figure in American history regarding abolition. He set into motion the idea that would eventually bring an end to it all, and he did it with five words.

"All men are created equal."

Biggest impact of any individual in that era.

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.

From much of what I have read on the subject, it becomes apparent that Northerner's greatest objection to slavery was that it caused black people to live among them. The majority of Northerners hated black people and absolutely did not want them in their culture or their community.

It was a much smaller minority that objected to slavery because they viewed it as morally wrong.

Most of these were from the same hotbeds of liberalism we see today, like Massachusetts.

Jefferson was a realist. He knew the dangers of slavery to the United States, when he wrote to J. Holmes in April 1820 regarding slavery and Missouri”

“But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

- see Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826, and Paul Leicester Ford. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York [etc.]: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 189299.

Jefferson knew it was not possible to do away with slavery in his lifetime.

"Can you identify one instance in which Jefferson actually advocated for the abolition of slavery in Virginia?"

No you couldn't, and no, you did not even try.

"Jefferson's plan for gradual emancipation included removing the freed slaves from the United States when they reached adulthood."
Those are your words. You typed them. Read them.

I read it. I said in Virginia. Jefferson's plan was the creation of free blacks in some distant clime. They were to be deported or expelled concurrent with emancipation.

These are Jefferson's words, not your ridiculous Kamalala nonsense. A quote of Jefferson's words buries your absurdities.

You can't point to any instance in his record as legislator, governor, president, negotiator, advisor, etc etc etc. Don't feel bad, nobody ever has anything about Jefferson's record, all they have is some personal matters of Jefferson's life.

Welcome to Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia.

To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. 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, feeds, 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; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.

Also Jefferson:

They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour.

Also Jefferson:

The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man?

More Jefferson:

Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.

One can readily see why Jefferson had a plan to emancipate them in conjunction with their deportation to anywhere but here. In Jefferson's assessment, they were dumb, ugly, and smelled bad, and he assessed that they did not belong in the gene pool. It takes some special perversion to view one who advocates for ethnic cleansing, as an advocate for those he desires to cleanse from the population.

What remains is why you cannot provide a single quote of Jefferson advocating for emancipation in Virginia. Jefferson's plan was inextricably linked with deportation of the undesired race to some distant clime.

One can readily see why you do not want to quote anything relevant from the historical record and prefer to champion a paper that features the disclaimer, "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." It's easy. You just forget the disclaimer and charge forward as if the existence of some nebulous pact has been established.

Thank you P.A., good stuff.

Have the courage of your convictions Woodpusher, state your opinion.

You believe Thomas Jefferson was a racist.

Don’t dissemble. Don’t hide behind huge tracts of two pages of this or six paragraphs of that, with nice, distracting HTML colors.

Make a quick, tiny, buttoned up reply that simply contains the five words in your heart.

“Thomas Jefferson was a racist”

Go ahead. Do it. Be honest for a change. Small, short, simple. You do not need any more than five words.

“Thomas Jefferson was a racist”

Your turn.

What is often neglected in their rants about slavery in America by leftists are some facts: Slavery existed in Africa way before it came here, Africans enslaving other Africans and the first slave traders in America were Africans. Granted, we did not make it any better until the Civil War and even later, probably started in earnest during the 1960’s. Yes, Jefferson had “slaves” but from what I’ve read they were more like servants and treated well. He released two while living and 5 were released after his death. The slaves he had were better off than many American citizens. But Al Sharpton, his followers and Americans who had nothing to do with the past, but feel guilty somehow just have to keep “racism” alive. We did have a half black president with a black wife by the way. Racism will die when the racists do if that ever happens, seems like there is money in it, just ask AL.

Thomas Jefferson was a racist.

Thomas Jefferson explicitly wrote that he believed in the superiority of the white race over the black race; and he believed in the separation of the races. If that does not define him as a racist, I do not know what could.

A racist is one who believes in the superiority of one race over another based on inherent physical characteristics. It is not about hating anyone.

Why are you so mentally crippled that you cannot discuss the actual words of Thomas Jefferson?

Thomas Jefferson wrote that he wanted to emancipate and deport black slaves, and to recruit an equal number of foreign white people to replace them. He clearly wrote that blacks were an inherently inferior race. What is your problem in understanding that Thomas Jefferson, like the vast majority of founders, was a racist?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism

Racism is the belief that humans can be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

"Thomas Jefferson was a racist."

Wow. I am shocked, but I applaud you for stating it so simply. Moving on. That's your opinion, it is what it is. I just wanted to see if you would actually do it, I was wrong.

"Why are you so mentally crippled that you cannot discuss the actual words of Thomas Jefferson?"

Because actions speak louder than words. Thomas Jefferson was an abolitionist. See that? Let's address your post 26 and go into detail of your foolishness.

"No you couldn't, and no, you did not even try."

And

"I read it. I said in Virginia."

I don't really care that you said Virginia. It's irrelevant. If abolition could've been achieved all across the U.S., that would've picked up Virginia anyways on the come. So, I mean, it's the bigger fish.

"What remains is why you cannot provide a single quote of Jefferson advocating for emancipation in Virginia."

He had his sights bigger than just Virginia. And he achieved his goal as President. So, I don't care about quotes because actions speak louder than words.

"One can readily see why you do not want to quote anything relevant from the historical record"

Coming from you this doesn't mean much. What historical record, that tiny little box you've confined yourself to? You got pissed when I pointed out that the British Empire forced slavery on the United States, and brought up a bunch of facts you didn't know to prove it. That tiny little box of yours, that progressivism history you cling to so dearly? I'm not worried about that junk in the slightest.

That progressivism history that you're head over heels in love with is exactly what I seek to destroy. And I will destroy it. It's weak at the joints. This will be fun.

"Jefferson's plan was the creation of free blacks in some distant clime. They were to be deported or expelled concurrent with emancipation."

That's how all of the racist abolitionists were in those days. Racists like William Wilberforce wanted to put the blacks over in Sierra Leone, as did Granville Sharp. This wasn't something unique to the United States, did you think it was? Of course you did think that.

Your heavy reliance upon progressive history is beclowning you. Thomas Clarkson and his son John also wanted to see the blacks out to Sierra Leone. You don't know your history.

I said earlier: "You can't point to any instance in his record as legislator, governor, president, negotiator, advisor, etc etc etc. Don't feel bad, nobody ever has anything about Jefferson's record, all they have is some personal matters of Jefferson's life."

"Welcome to Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia."

Welcome to what, fool? Jefferson specifically states in Notes on the State of Virginia that slavery must be destroyed.

Full Stop. He states it specifically. You're not really going to deny that fact are you?

I really hope you are not going to drag this tomfoolery out for dozens of denials from you that Jefferson wrote that slavery has to go in that very book. You need to come correct, you need to be honest and simply state that you know the page number.

Yes. I have the page number. So I know you have it too.

This is exactly what happens when you're animated by hatred. You beclown yourself in ridiculousness.

As for those words you quoted? Those were nothing but personal opinions. So what? I started my original posting with five words: "Thomas Jefferson was an abolitionist." and you have not provided one shred of evidence contrary. All you can hang your hat on are personal opinions that Jefferson never once acted upon in his entire life, as it relates to the things he did in official matters.

Here they are again, just to make sure you see them again:

* 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.

And even Woodpusher, with his extreme hatred of Thomas Jefferson cannot provide anything either. Except the opposite. You provided a plan for emancipation!!! How contradictory is that to what was requested. You cannot provide one shred of evidence from basically 50 years in public life where Jefferson advocated on behalf of promoting the institution of slavery. None. Zero. Zilch. All you can point to are personal items, this is Jerry Springer stuff that you're relying on. JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!

So is the life of Thomas Jefferson, abolitionist. Actions. Speak louder than words.

You beclown yourself, but you can make up the difference. Post the page number from Notes of Virginia Where Thomas Jefferson specifically says that slavery cannot stand. It must fall.

You know the page number. Provide it first. Start with that. Move your other cuts and pastes downward, and start the top of your reply with the page number where slavery must be abolished.

Because actions speak louder than words. Thomas Jefferson was an abolitionist. See that?

Jefferson's action was to own hundreds of slaves and keep the enslaved until he died. Upon his death, he only manumitted the Jefferson children.

"I read it. I said in Virginia."
I don't really care that you said Virginia. It's irrelevant. If abolition could've been achieved all across the U.S., that would've picked up Virginia anyways on the come. So, I mean, it's the bigger fish.

It was not abolition, it was ethnic cleansing with forced expulsion, much as Lincoln tried to pitch to black leaders during the Civil War. Among the black leaders, it received a really cold reception. It takes a really sick mind to consider ethnic cleansing with forced expulsion, and replacement by importing a like number of white people, to be for the benefit of black people. But there you are.

Jefferson would have cleansed the entire nation of the unwanted black presence.

He had his sights bigger than just Virginia. And he achieved his goal as President. So, I don't care about quotes because actions speak louder than words.

Wow! Jefferson abolished slavery as president and the Civil War was averted. Who knew?

Do give a link, cite and quote of Jefferson's Emancipation Proclamation.

"One can readily see why you do not want to quote anything relevant from the historical record"
Coming from you this doesn't mean much. What historical record, that tiny little box you've confined yourself to? You got pissed when I pointed out that the British Empire forced slavery on the United States, and brought up a bunch of facts you didn't know to prove it. That tiny little box of yours, that progressivism history you cling to so dearly? I'm not worried about that junk in the slightest.

Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia is not a little box.

Please identify the post where you claim to have said anything about the British. The only reference to the British I find is my own at #15.

The British Empire did not force slavery upon the United States. It forced slavery upon the British colonies. Upon its creation, the United States could have abolished slavery. It did not. All thirteen states unanimously agreed to slavery and the Fugitive Slave Clause.

You are the one with that progressing crap in your handle.

That progressivism history that you're head over heels in love with is exactly what I seek to destroy. And I will destroy it. It's weak at the joints. This will be fun.

At least we agree that this will be fun.

"Jefferson's plan was the creation of free blacks in some distant clime. They were to be deported or expelled concurrent with emancipation."
That's how all of the racist abolitionists were in those days. Racists like William Wilberforce wanted to put the blacks over in Sierra Leone, as did Granville Sharp. This wasn't something unique to the United States, did you think it was? Of course you did think that.

While in Europe, I lived for a while with a guy from Sierra Leone who was in the British Army. I've heard of it before.

When the British abolished slavery in Britain, they kept the overwhelming majority of it in their colonies. If you are not familiar with that state of affairs, see the case of The Slave Grace, 2 Hagg. Admir. (G.B.) 94, (1827). In R. v. Knowles ex rel Somersett, (1772) 20 State Tr 1, Britain did not free anybody, but it did establish that a slave brought onto British soil could not be forcibly removed from British soil.

Your heavy reliance upon progressive history is beclowning you. Thomas Clarkson and his son John also wanted to see the blacks out to Sierra Leone. You don't know your history.

Your citing British politicians to make believe it has to do with American history is typical. Sierra Leone was created for the ethnic cleansing of Britain. The capital is Freetown.

Liberia is the American equivalent, the capital is Monrovia, named after President James Monroe. The black colonization of Liberia failed. Essentially they were abandoned and they died.

You obviously do not know your history.

I said earlier: "You can't point to any instance in his record as legislator, governor, president, negotiator, advisor, etc etc etc. Don't feel bad, nobody ever has anything about Jefferson's record, all they have is some personal matters of Jefferson's life."
"Welcome to Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia."
Welcome to what, fool? Jefferson specifically states in Notes on the State of Virginia that slavery must be destroyed.
Full Stop. He states it specifically. You're not really going to deny that fact are you?
I really hope you are not going to drag this tomfoolery out for dozens of denials from you that Jefferson wrote that slavery has to go in that very book. You need to come correct, you need to be honest and simply state that you know the page number.
Yes. I have the page number. So I know you have it too.

You did not quote a word from Notes of Thomas Jefferson on the State of Virginia, and you did not provide a cite/link and page number, because the content to which you refer cannot be found. A cite/link would be necessary to know to which of the editions you refer. Page numbers may differ but you did not find that on any page.

For once, provide an actual quote, with citation, not just an imaginary quote asking me to find it for you. Do your own homework. If you really have the page number, it should be real easy.

This is exactly what happens when you're animated by hatred. You beclown yourself in ridiculousness.

This is what happens when you can't quote something and make believe you have the publication and the page number for it. You beclown yourself in ridiculousness.

As for those words you quoted? Those were nothing but personal opinions. So what? I started my original posting with five words: "Thomas Jefferson was an abolitionist." and you have not provided one shred of evidence contrary. All you can hang your hat on are personal opinions that Jefferson never once acted upon in his entire life, as it relates to the things he did in official matters.

The words I quoted were the words of Thomas Jefferson, published by Thomas Jefferson in 1781. They were the personal opinions of Thomas Jefferson. I can even quote it again for your reading pleasure.

To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. 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, feeds, 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; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.

Also Jefferson:

They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour.

Also Jefferson:

The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man?

More Jefferson:

Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.

One can readily see why Jefferson had a plan to emancipate them in conjunction with their expulsion to anywhere but here. In Jefferson's assessment, they were dumb, ugly, and smelled bad, and he assessed that they did not belong in the American gene pool. They should be removed from the country and an equal number of white people should be enticed to come to America to replace them.

It takes some special perversion to view one who advocates for ethnic cleansing, as an advocate for those he desires to cleanse from the population.

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.

There is no end to the things you have not seen. Concerning Thomas Jefferson, there is no beginning to what you have seen and are able to cite and quote. You have still produced zero cites and quotes of Jefferson advocating for abolition. I provided his ethnic cleansing program to remove blacks from the United States, as Jefferson stated he found they were an inferior race and they smelled bad. Jefferson advocated that, concurrent with their removal, they be replaced with an equal number of white people.

And even Woodpusher, with his extreme hatred of Thomas Jefferson cannot provide anything either. Except the opposite. You provided a plan for emancipation!!!

I do not hate Jefferson. Neither do I make believe that advocating for ethnic cleansing of a race is a plan for emancipation. He is one of our greatest founders, but like more than 99% of the founding generation, he found the black race to be inferior and said so, i.e. he was by definition a racist.

Here is a black man's response about a similar plan advocated by Lincoln:

Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory, Johnson Publishing Company, Chicago, 2000, pg. 514:

More ominously, Lincoln said he was still committed to an all-White nation, with a transitional period of quasi-freedom followed by the deportation of the freedmen. This is what he said:
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.
Here then in unexpurgated language, is Lincoln's blueprint for the American future. It's all there, all of it—his gradualism, his racism, his deeply rooted belief that this land was the White man's land—and there is no possibility of understanding him or the Proclamation without an understanding of the official plan for a new White America he unfolded in this State of the Union message.
Despite its thrice-repeated calls for deportation of Blacks, despite its passionate plea for a continuation of slavery for thirty-seven years, despite its official projection of the notion of an all-white nation, the whole American cultural structure—historians, curators, writers, editors—has endorsed this message.

Not only have historians, curators, writers and editors endorsed this message, ProgressingAmerica has endorsed this message as wholesome and good.

How was it right and good to ethnically cleanse the black population from the United States and replace them with white settlers?

So is the life of Thomas Jefferson, abolitionist. Actions. Speak louder than words.

Yes they do! Thomas Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves for the entirety of his adult life. If one escaped, he put out a bounty for his capture. Thomas Jefferson died a slave owner, and in his will, he only set free the Jefferson children of Sally Hemings, but not Sally Hemings herself. Actions speak louder than words. The actions of Marse Thomas do not scream abolitionist.

You beclown yourself, but you can make up the difference. Post the page number from Notes of Virginia Where Thomas Jefferson specifically says that slavery cannot stand. It must fall.
You know the page number. Provide it first. Start with that. Move your other cuts and pastes downward, and start the top of your reply with the page number where slavery must be abolished.

You beclown yourself, making believe that you have such a page number. If you have the imaginary page number, post it, and provide a link or citation to the specific edition of Jefferson's Notes on Virginia. In any case, Jefferson's discussion of slavery is in Chapter XIV on Laws, Query XIV. I'll wait. And wait. And wait.

Thus far, you have not quoted a word of Jefferson advocating abolition.

Here's a Jefferson quote: "Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peacefully and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and in their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers."

And ProgressingAmerica equates a policy of emancipation and deportation as beneficent to the black man. That makes Jefferson an abolitionist, rather than an outspoken proponent of ethnic cleansing to remove the evil of the black presence. Tell me more about why you believe the black man should have been deported for being black.

Regarding the territories, Lincoln appears to have taken his cue from Jefferson.

"Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home -- may find some spot where they can better their condition -- where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. [Great and continued cheering.] I am in favor of this not merely, (I must say it here as I have elsewhere,) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over---in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. [Loud and long continued applause.]
Lincoln, 1858, CW 3:312
Lincoln wanted the territories to be "the happy home of teeming millions of free, white prosperous people, and no slave among them"
Lincoln, 1854, CW 2:249
The territories "should be kept open for the homes of free white people"
Lincoln, 1856, CW 2:363
"We want them [the territories] for the homes of free white people."
Lincoln, CW 3:311
If slavery was allowed to spread to the territories, he said "Negro equality will be abundant, as every White laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n-----s"
Lincoln, CW 3:78 [Lincoln uses the N-word without elision]
"Is it not rather our duty [as White men] to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?"
Lincoln, CW 3:79
"in our greedy chase to make profit of the Negro, let us beware, lest we 'cancel and tear to pieces' even the white man's charter of freedom"
Lincoln, CW 2:276
Lincolnian White Man's Charter of Freedom = The Declaration of Independence

woodpusher: 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.

ProgressingAmerica: The Chicago Historical Society found no reason to discount the material, so the word unreliable is inappropriate.

There is a JSTOR article that directly addresses the papers of the Leman family referenced by MacNaul's 1915 paper: "A Mighty Contest'': The Jefferson-Lemen Compact Reevaluated — James. A Erdstrom, Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1998-), Vol. 97, No. 3 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 192-215 (24 pages)

Here are some choice quotes from the paper (bold and underline are emphasis mine):

"Given the significant, even radical, implications of the story of the Jefferson-Lemen Compact, it is difficult to understand why MacNaul made no thorough effort to verify the authenticity of the relevant documents. Even if those original materials had "gone the way of all paper" and were no longer available, it is hard to believe there would be no other documents to support the story - in the Thomas Jefferson papers, for example. As it was, MacNaul chose merely to present the Lemen family papers as published without inquiring too closely as to their provenance and without attempting to find any corroborating evidence in other archival collections. Indeed, in the years since MacNaul's publication, there has been no systematic effort to evaluate either the documents or the story they narrate."

"This much is clear about the Lemen family papers: there are a total of thirteen documents comprising the collection, and of these, eight are directly relevant to the story of the Jefferson-Lemen Compact. Of these eight, six are definitely fraudulent and the remaining two are skeptical."

The paper then goes on to describe in detail why the various papers are fraudulent by contradicting them with other publicly available letters and evidence. With regards to Jefferson, we have this section which seems relevant:

"The fifth document is a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Robert Lemen (brother of James Lemen Sr.) dated 10 September 1807. As earlier mentioned, John Mason Peck quotes only a fragment of this letter in his alleged history of the compact. In it, the third President wrote of his regard for James Lemen Sr. and asked Robert Lemen to urge his brother to visit Jefferson. There are several problems with the provenance of this document. Jefferson was a meticulous correspondent, carefully preserving the letters he received and copying those that he sent. There is no record of this letter in any of the sources consulted, and, for that matter, no reference to any correspondence or contact between Jefferson and James Lemen Sr. Jefferson wrote letters on 8 September and 19 September, but none on 10 September 1807. Jefferson was traveling between Monticello and Bedford, Virginia, during the period of 9-17 September, which would not have been conducive to maintaining his usual painstaking correspondence habits."

"The next document, the alleged diary of James Lemen Sr., is in many ways the most problematical of all the Lemen family papers. The author of this diary penned it in a very self-important, self-aware style, almost as if the author is consciously composing it for the audience of posterity. It moves erratically from brief references to Lemen's family to detailed descriptions of his political and religious activities, and overall it lacks the authentic voice found in pioneer letters such as those written by Gershom Flagg, who settled in Madison County in 1818. Moreover, there are clues within the diary that detract from its validity. For example, on 28 December 1785 Lemen recorded that Jefferson's confidential agent gave him one hundred dollars "of his funds to use for my family, if need be, and if not to go to good causes, and I will go to Illinois on his mission next Spring and take my wife and children." A careful examination of Jefferson's account book for the time period covering 2 May 1784, when Jefferson and Lemen supposedly met, through 31 December 1785 reveals no transaction corresponding with this incident."

"Ultimately, the central difficulty of establishing the validity of the story of the Jefferson-Lemen Compact lies in the complete lack of provenance for the Lemen family papers. No one, certainly not Joseph Lemen, who was more responsible than anyone for attempting to popularize the story, ever produced the original documents themselves or validated copies. There are several notations from James Lemen Jr. within the diary as published by Willard MacNaul: "I have examined the within notes and find them to be true copies of notes kept by Rev. James Lemen, Sr., which were fading out."59 In other words, he had undertaken the rigorous task of comparing transcriptions of the diary entries with the originals. However, these, too, are questionable due to the date of attestation: 4 June 1867. Lyman Copeland Draper, who corresponded with Lemen Jr. in the course of Draper's research on early Midwestern history, recorded that, during the summer of 1868 (only one year after the attestation date), he called upon Lemen Jr. and found that "his memory had all faded out, so he could give no information whatever." Moreover, in his correspondence with Draper a few years earlier, James Lemen Jr. made repeated references to his inability to provide substantial assistance to Draper's research owing to his own feeble health. In this context, it is questionable whether Lemen Jr. would have been capable of such extensive copy editing."

Even contemporary reactions to Macnaul's 1915 paper were clear as to the fact that such a compact relied upon the authenticity of the Lemen papers, and that the lack of being able to authenticate them was problematic. "Moreover, if the original papers were as valuable as Joseph Lemen suggested, there should be at least a record of them somewhere, even if the papers themselves have disappeared. By rights, some provision should have been made for their retention and preservation. The examination of the wills of both James Lemen Jr. and Joseph Lemen, written in 1870 and 1906, respectively, reveals no reference to the Lemen family papers."

Overall, despite the Lemen-Jefferson's position in popular history, "Scholars who have studied the life and career of Thomas Jefferson likewise call the story of the compact into serious question. Merrill D. Peterson wrote in 1960 that in spite of initial support from some historians, "the best authorities on the Old Northwest have for some time regarded it as false or unproven." He also noted that Julian Boyd, editor of the Jefferson papers, had found no record of any relationship between Lemen and the third President. Boyd himself commented directly upon the issue to author Lyn Allison Yeager in 1975 by saying "The so-called 'Jefferson-Lemen Compact' is without foundation ... that such a compact existed is inherently implausible and, with respect to Jefferson, wholly uncharacteristic."...Why Joseph Lemen chose to put forth questionable - indeed, fraudulent - documents in the service of a spurious story is at best a matter for speculation. As shown, Lemen was ardently anti-slavery and it seems unnecessary for Joseph Lemen to perpetuate a rumor linking James Lemen Sr. and Thomas Jefferson in a conspiracy to outlaw slavery in Illinois. The history of the Lemen family's service in the antislavery cause is documented and unimpeachable, and their legacy merits respect and admiration. In the face of the evidence and the doubtful validity of the Lemen family papers, however, the story of the Jefferson-Lemen Compact must ultimately be consigned to the realm of myth."

All told, in spite of the claims of the original post, I don't think this alleged compact is worth boasting about, at least insofar as it concerns Thomas Jefferson.

"Jefferson's action was to own hundreds of slaves and keep the enslaved until he died."

Jefferson's action was to be against slavery as a legislator in his legislation. A fact you cannot deny.

Jefferson's action was to be against slavery as the author of the Declaration of Independence. A fact you cannot deny.

Jefferson's action was to be against slavery as a governor. A fact you cannot deny.

Jefferson's action was to be against slavery as a president, with laws enacted to that effect. A fact you cannot deny and, quite frankly, aren't even trying to deny.

Jefferson's action was to be against slavery in other roles of his public life, such as negotiator, advisor, activist, author, and any others I may have forgot. A fact you cannot deny.

As for the rest of the personal fluff you're so obsessed with:

"Wow! Jefferson abolished slavery as president and the Civil War was averted. Who knew?"

I love it when things I do not say are responded to. I specifically avoid your unhealthy civil war mania. Yet every time somehow you place me right back into it with well over 60% of the posts to me from you containing the name of Abraham Lincoln. That's a sickness.

All I did say was that Jefferson achieved his goal, and he did.

" Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia is not a little box."

Your civil war mania is the little box. You seem unable to escape it, as if its a personal black hole with gravitational pull.

"Your citing British politicians to make believe it has to do with American history is typical."

Well that's true I guess because you seem to think the U.S. declared independence from Sri Lanka...... or something. I'll make sure to talk to you a little bit more about the Bhagavad Gita and its role in the colonies going forward.

"They were the personal opinions of Thomas Jefferson."

Not according to you. You keep elevating words up to action status. Stop trying to have it both ways while you keep telling me that words speak louder than actions.

"you did not provide a cite/link and page number, because the content to which you refer cannot be found."

The depth of your ignorance is deeper than I thought. That is sad. What it means is that you have never actually read Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, you have only ever quoted from it to glean useful talking points from it in true partisan fashion. That's terribly weak. It's in Query XVIII, where he complains of the culture of despotism that comes from owning slaves as it is incompatible with liberty. The page numbers are 173-175

The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.

"You are the one with that progressing crap in your handle."

I am, and proud of it. You should be just as equally proud to be clinging so eagerly to their historical narratives. For your next trick, you'll tell us all how important and correct that 1619 Project junk is.

"Your citing British politicians to make believe it has to do with American history is typical. Sierra Leone was created for the ethnic cleansing of Britain."

I would not have worded it that way, I'll stick with my original statement. That's how all of the racist abolitionists were in those days. Racists like William Wilberforce wanted to put the blacks over in Sierra Leone, as did Granville Sharp. This wasn't something unique to the United States.

And it is totally related. Look at how similar these three statements are:

Racist Granville Sharp wanted to put the blacks over in Sierra Leone
Racist Thomas Jefferson wanted to put the blacks over in Liberia
Racist William Wilberforce wanted to put the blacks over in Sierra Leone

They are all the same sentence. Because these things are not included within your civil war mania, I know you cannot fathom it. The fact remains they are the same sentence.

"The words I quoted were the words of Thomas Jefferson."

I am aware of them. They are personal opinions. Even you say they are personal opinions. But only when it is convenient for you. At other times you equate them with actions.

"One can readily see why Jefferson had a plan to emancipate them"

You keep typing this contradictory statement. It is very amusing.

"It takes some special perversion to view one who advocates for ethnic cleansing, as an advocate for those he desires to cleanse from the population."

It actually doesn't since you kind of also accused British Abolitionists of the very same thing. You said "Sierra Leone was created for the ethnic cleansing of Britain."

Again I would not word it that way but you clearly believe that men like Wilberforce, Clarkson, and Sharp were plotting horrendous schemes of ethnic cleansing. When I say you live in a tiny little box as it pertains to history this is exactly what I mean. That little box of yours is massively corrupted by the perversion of left wing progressive historians.

"You have still produced zero cites and quotes of Jefferson advocating for abolition."

Actions speak louder than words. There are no quotes. Grow up. To cite the results of the states that were created through the Northwest Ordinance, what would you have me do, ask Ohio? How is Ohio going to provide a quote get a grip on reality.

"And ProgressingAmerica equates a policy of emancipation and deportation as beneficent to the black man."

I love being adjudged guilty for the fake hallucinations of a person drunk on progressivism history, with words I simply never stated.

But knowing that you believe that all abolitionists who thought it a good idea to see them put back in Africa, whether Sierra Leone or Liberia is an act of Ethnic Cleansing and as such, not only Jefferson but also William Wilberforce and Granville Sharp and the Clarkson's were Ethnic Cleansers, I'm well out of my depth and out of my league to handle this sort of mental illness. Perhaps you're not even well enough to realize that that's the full accusation you made against all of these people. As well as others unnamed.

All of this was very unexpected, I definitely did not see this coming(the calling of them all "ethnic cleansers").

Though I will say, It makes a little more sense now how I keep getting pulled back into your civil war mania. No doubt, your next post will somehow manage to mention Abraham Lincoln in it because your mental illness requires it.

"Tell me more about why you believe the black man should have been deported for being black."

Yeah, I'm not currently ready to call every last abolitionist an ethnic cleanser knowing how many of them supported the idea of re-colonization.

Whoever your university professors were, they did one hell of a job on you.

You are thoroughly indoctrinated, 100%. No doubt about it.

"There is a JSTOR article that directly addresses the papers of the Leman family referenced by MacNaul's 1915 paper: "A Mighty Contest'': The Jefferson-Lemen Compact Reevaluated — James. A Erdstrom, Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1998-), Vol. 97, No. 3 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 192-215 (24 pages)"

This JSTOR article makes much more sense, thank you for providing it, as well as the many paragraphs of in-depth analysis which was not provided earlier.

For me, at least, this new information clears things up about this set of documents and story line.

FWIW, when I searched for this after seeing it appear the only JSTOR article that I saw was much shorter. The one you provided I cannot read at all except for the first page, so I trust in good faith that your cut and pastes are accurate to the remaining pages of

You can read 100 articles on JSTOR with a free account before you have to upgrade. I just signed in with my Google account.

To be specific, you can read 100 articles (that are not subscription-only) for free every 30 days with a personal account.

Thank you, I’ll keep that in mind.

I don’t know if you noticed the question I asked earlier in the initial ping, but I wanted to ask again in a more generic way perhaps a more useful way.

Do you have any public domain book suggestions I should add to my list?

I asked a little more generically this time, but you’ve done this to me before with some article from JSTOR that I couldn’t see, their contents do not show up in search. I appreciate good insight when it is apparent.

Many of the short recordings I’ve done I chose specifically because the short articles had better information than most long-form books.

The Jefferson-Lemen Compact, p. 50-51.

XIII. ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S LETTER
Belleville Weekly Advocate, April 24, 1908
The following letter and remarks from Abraham Lincoln, hitherto unpublishhed, comprise the fifth letter of the series of old "Pioneer Letters" which Mr. J. B. Lemen of O'Fallon is sending to the Advocate.—Ed.
Springfield, Illinois. March 2, 1857.
Rev. James Lemen,
[O'Fallon, Illinois,]
Friend Lemen: Thanking you for your warm appreciation of my views in a former letter as to the importance in many features of your collection of old family notes and papers, I will add a few words more as to Elijah P. Lovejoy's case. His letters among your old family notes were of more interest to me than even those of Thomas Jefferson, written to your father. Of course they [the latter] were exceedingly important as a part of the history of the "Jefferson-Lemen Anti-Slavery Pact," under which your father. Rev. James Lemen, Sr., as Jefferson's anti-slavery agent in Illinois, founded his anti-slavery churches, among which was the present Bethel church, which set in motion the forces which finally made Illinois a free state, all of which was splendid; but Lovejoy's tragic death for freedom in every sense marked his sad ending as the most important single event that ever happened in the new world.
Both your father and Lovejoy were pioneer leaders in the cause of freedom, and it has always been difficult for me to see why your father, who was a resolute, uncompromising, and aggressive leader, who boldly proclaimed his purpose to make both the territory and the state free, never aroused nor encountered any of that mob violence which both in St. Louis and Alton confronted or pursued Lovejoy, and which finally doomed him to a felon's death and a martyr's crown. Perhaps the two cases are a little parallel with those of John and Peter. John was bold and fearless at the scene of the Crucifixion, standing near the cross receiving the Savior's request to care for his mother, but was not annoyed; while Peter, whose disposition to shrink from public view, seemed to catch the attention of members of the mob on every hand, until finally to throw public attention off, he denied his master with an oath; though later the grand old apostle redeemed himself grandly, and like Lovejoy, died a martyr to his faith. Of course, there was no similarity between Peter's treachery at the Temple and Lovejoy's splendid courage when the pitiless mob were closing around him. But in the cases of the two apostles at the scene mentioned, John was more prominent or loyal in his presence and attention to the Great Master than Peter was, but the latter seemed to catch the attention of the mob; and as Lovejoy, one of the most inoffensive of men, for merely printing a small paper, devoted to the freedom of the body and mind of man, was pursued to his death; while his older comrade in the cause of freedom. Rev. James Lemen, Sr., who boldly and aggressively proclaimed his purpose to make both the territory and the state free, was never molested a moment by the minions of violence. The madness and pitiless determination with which the mob steadily pursued Lovejoy to his doom, marks it as one of the most unreasoning and unreasonable in all time, except that which doomed the Savior to the cross.
If ever you should come to Springfield again, do not fail to call. The memory of our many "evening sittings" here and elsewhere, as we called them, suggests many a pleasant hour, both pleasant and helpful.
Truly yours,
A. Lincoln.

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 8, pg. 452, Appendix 2:

Mar. 2 to James Lemen, forgery, Tracy, 71.

The letter was rejected for the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln due to it being a forgery. That is the Collected Works of 1953. Seventy one years later the progressives are recycling this fictional creation published in 1915.

The story of James Lemen is most recently (unless there is a newer one than I can find) discussed in the book "The Jefferson Lies", by David Barton.

Now I'll have to pick up a copy of that book to see what was said about it.