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 3:312Lincoln wanted the territories to be "the happy home of teeming millions of free, white prosperous people, and no slave among them"
Lincoln, 1854, CW 2:249The 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 3:311If 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