Posted on 05/28/2012 3:36:36 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Ha! Well-done! You show yourself to be the hypocrite Jefferson was. You did not cite ONE example of what I actually wrote to back up your mindless accusations, while in all your posts about Jefferson, not ONCE do you address the hypocrisy (that I noted twice) of his owning slaves his entire life and not even freeing them in his will. Nor did you address the data I provided showing that Hamilton REALLY worked for abolition.
Sorry to say, but you are really not worth debating since you do not deal with facts. Even though Hamilton is one of my hero Founders, I acknowledged his shortcomings with his sponsoring the Whiskey Tax; but you cannot bring yourself to own up to TJ's many character blemishes since it appears that the cult of personality has gotten the better of your senses.
First of all, Thomas Jefferson wasn't the best of administrators or the most practical of men. As governor of Virginia, Jefferson botched the defense of the state and had to flee the capital. He also didn't leave our military in as good a shape as it could have been when the War of 1812 began. Whatever Hamilton's ideological faults, he did bring a degree of practical financial know-how to government, and he was concerned with building a stronger America.
Secondly, Jefferson wasn't always the greatest advocate of liberty. We know about his problems with slavery and his admiration for the French Revolution, even in its uglier aspects. There has also been criticism from libertarians for the way he enforced the Embargo Acts, but the impetus he gave to pro-slavery and separationist thinking in his later years is also a great blot on his record.
Third, there's a self-righteousness and hypocrisy about Jefferson and his supporters that's off-putting. They played the game of politics well, not always fairly, and to their own advantage, but claimed to be much more righteous and moralistic than their record merited. In that they are a lot like today's liberals.
Jefferson did have his positive side -- he wrote the Declaration of Independence and went after the Barbary Pirates, and where would we be as a country without the Louisiana Purchase? -- but he comes across as a romantic, a poet, a (flawed) idealist in situations when a bluffer, more down-to-earth man like Washington would have been a better leader.
Once again, thanks for your input.
It is quite clear that you are trolling for insults and it would be more polite if you stopped playing games.
“Flash.
“Founding Father Jefferson First to Unilaterally Denounce Slavery but Witnesses Say This Was Not Important Since He Owned Slaves.
Another Delegate and Slave owner Franklin Dubbed Respectful Because He Does Not Own That Many.”
Well, actually not at all....but thanks for trying.
But you found what I said, and that was that Jefferson's DOI convention exposure of the Crown and the slave trade for what it was...an abomination, was the first effort of a founder. Others arose at the Constitutional Convention, and after exhausting themselves, the best they could do was agree to end the trade in 1808. But Jefferson remains the first and only statesman to lend his voice on a national level.
And when you concluded that “resistance and protest before Jefferson” was occuring, your evidence did not rise to the issue. Nice attempt at a red herring.
Did I say Red Herring? What about these:
“...the Declaration wouldn't in itself have forbidden slavery or the slave trade.
Pointing out the absence of what was an unknown does not change the facts of Jefferson's actions.
“...and I don't see any reason to demean other founders to make Jefferson shine brighter.”
I certainly agree and would appreciate you naming any of the other 56 delegates that agreed with Jefferson, so that we may not include them in the list of people unwilling to take the Jefferson stand against the slave issue.
I knew you would see the humor in what you said.
Quite to the contrary, your post points out who is really trolling for insults.
Trolling for insults?
Please.
I think any objective observer would read your posts in this thread and find your posts both irrational and abrasive.
If you know how the delegates voted and what they said about Jefferson's reference to slavery in his draft, why don't you produce the information or admit you can't. One thing we do know is that Jefferson didn't put up a fight. If he wouldn't fight for it himself, how can you expect others to do so?
But in fact, the First Continental Congress voted to ban the international slave trade in 1774. True, it was undertaken to punish Britain, rather than because of a concern for the slaves, but that's a matter of public record. So, sure, at least a majority was on record for two years as opposing the slave trade.
There were 86 changes made in Jefferson's draft. This was only one of many. Jefferson's language was wordy and bloated. Here it was bombastic. And his claim here was untrue: c'mon, the king forced us to take slaves and now he's trying to get the slaves to kill us?
If you wanted to make slavery an issue at that time -- which would have meant jeopardizing independence -- was that the best way to present your case? Proslavery interests killed the clause, but I suspect some of the delegates were just puzzled by Jefferson's argument. In any case, they were already on record as being against the slave trade for two years.
Maybe they had to answer to their maker for not taking a stronger stand against slavery itself or for not making their temporary and tactical opposition to the slave trade morally based, permanent, and fundamental, but they didn't have to answer to Jefferson.
I think you confused which post of mine was for you.
I was pointing out the bias, i.e. irrational criticisms of yours, while trying to keep it light.
But you must have missed it.
Or are you answering posts of others?
You continue to try to annoy me with your repetitive accusations.
Of course, I find them very interesting, so please continue.
Your last effort consisted of asking that I produce discussion from the DOI convention, which we all know was not recorded, and then trying to refute the truth of Jefferson's antislavery effort when evidence that he “didn't put up a fight” cannot be produced.
A well constructed red herring X, but since you cannot produce proof that “he didn't put up a fight”, since the records do not exist, then your contention does not hold a drop of water. You do not know what was said in the draft meetings, nor on the convention floor, nor in the planning, voting, or whatever you can imagine.
Then you bring up the first Continental Congress as another proof of actions prior to Jefferson at condemning slavery.
It should be pointed out that just after Jefferson's first term in the House of Burgesses, Thomas Jefferson proposed legislation to emancipate slaves in Virginia. This was done in late 1769.
In 1774, he drafted instructions to the Virginia Delegates for the First Continental Congress, entitled “A Summary View of the Rights of British America”. In it he called for an end to the slave trade: “The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state.”
But again, his actions preceeded the ones you name when you serve up the idea of the First Continental Congress when it agreed to discontinue the slave trade and boycott other nations that retained the practice.
Here also are more accomplishments on this effort: Jefferson's draft constitution for the state of Virginia forbade the importation of slaves; his draft of the Declaration of Independence included a condemnation of slavery.
And as President, he authorized the cessation of the slave trade altogether.....What other President, other than Lincoln, had a greater impact on the elimination of slavery?
Please check most recent post for any irrational or abrasive comments.
Sorry, PeaRidge. Since you don’t want to acknowledge the uncivil and uncalled for tone of your post at #104 to a fellow Freeper, I am not inclined to either search through any of your more recent postings for examples of incivility, or even read of your thoughts on anything unless an apology to that Freeper is issued.
Until I see that, which I don’t expect, this will be my last word on this subject. In that event, I concede the last word to you.
Uhh... maybe it's because I'm not that interested in your spiel. And what is this competitive thing you have? Every one here knows what you are like in debate and no one is impressed. Concentrate on remedying your own faults, rather than directing stupid put-downs at other participants.
A well constructed red herring X, but since you cannot produce proof that “he didn't put up a fight”, since the records do not exist, then your contention does not hold a drop of water. You do not know what was said in the draft meetings, nor on the convention floor, nor in the planning, voting, or whatever you can imagine.
You started out saying that you knew that other delegates, like Adams and Livingston had killed the clause in committee. Then you claimed they fought against it in the full convention, or didn't defend it there. You didn't have evidence for either claim, but that didn't stop you.
Now you say that "we all know" the convention "wasn't recorded." Why then did you make such claims? Why the unwarranted attack on Adams? Are you willing to admit you were wrong? Are you ashamed of your performance?
I found it said that Jefferson didn't speak up in defense of his version, and given that he also was too timid as President to speak up before Congress it's quite likely that he didn't. Certainly, if Jefferson had been eloquent and forceful in support of his original draft we would have heard about it.
Understand, it's no stretch to argue that a quiet, awkward man didn't speak up for his own work -- certainly not compared to blaming some specific other person for attacking or cutting it up without any actual evidence. So look, I'll provide my evidence when you provide yours?
It should be pointed out that just after Jefferson's first term in the House of Burgesses, Thomas Jefferson proposed legislation to emancipate slaves in Virginia. This was done in late 1769.
I can't believe how deceptive you are! I put your quote in bold type, appropriate given the boldfaced liar we've always known you to be. Jefferson helped draft legislation that would allow slave owners to free their slaves in their wills. It didn't pass. It would have left slavery in place. I suppose Jefferson's bill was a step in the right direction, but let's be honest: it wouldn't actually have directly emancipated any slaves if it had become law.
A similar manumission law was passed into law by Virginia in 1782 after Jefferson had left the Burgesses and the Governorship. So, let's see, TJ made one timid attempt at a law allowing masters to free their slaves in their wills, and then didn't even push that through when it failed. Years as legislator and governor, and nothing from him about this issue. Jefferson wasn't exactly a man of iron resolve on this, was he?
Jefferson chose to memorialize himself as an opponent of slavery in those days, but it's not like he was any great benefactor of African-Americans:
Starting in 1769, Jefferson served in the Virginia House of Burgesses for six years. He proposed laws that severely restricted free blacks from entering or living in Virginia: he would have banished children whose father was of African origin and exiled any white woman who had a child with a black man. Jefferson suggested that any free black found in violation of the laws would be in jeopardy of the lynch mob. According to the historian John Ferling, the Burgesses did not pass the laws "because they were excessively restrictive even for Jefferson's times.
Like I said, no great friend of the Black man.
In 1774, he drafted instructions to the Virginia Delegates for the First Continental Congress, entitled “A Summary View of the Rights of British America”. In it he called for an end to the slave trade: “The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state.”
That wasn't true, strictly speaking, was it? This was all part of Jefferson's attack on the king. Actual slavery -- as opposed to rhetorical invocations of slavery to attack George III -- makes an appearance here, as it does in Jefferson's draft of the Declaration, but it's not his main focus. As a lawyer, Jefferson recognized the importance of keeping several lines of argument going at the same time.
Jefferson was prettifying things for his audience. Anybody who objected to slavery was told it would go away with the king's tyranny, so they'd support Jefferson's political objectives. But was that really in the cards? Or was it another example of Jefferson's ability to deceive himself and others?
What other President, other than Lincoln, had a greater impact on the elimination of slavery?
Ulysses S. Grant? John Quincy Adams? Martin Van Buren? Even Madison and Monroe are possible candidates. As are those like McKinley and Garfield who actually fought for freedom on the battlefield. But it is good you choose to recognize Lincoln's contribution here.
No, he didn't. He merely took note of King George's capricious tendencies when it came to making or changing laws that affected the colonies. Read it again.
In 1798, Jefferson's friend of the Revolution, Tadeusz Kościuszko, a Polish nobleman, visited the US to collect back pay from his military service. He entrusted his money to Jefferson with a will directing him to spend the American money (and proceeds from his land in the US) to free and educate slaves, including Jefferson's. Kościuszko revised his will: "I hereby authorise my friend Thomas Jefferson to employ the whole thereof in purchasing Negroes from among his own or any others and giving them Liberty in my name," thus directing Jefferson to give his slaves their freedom at no cost to himself.[8] Kosciuško died in 1817, but Jefferson never carried out the terms of the will, although he could have freed all of his slaves at no cost to himself.[8]
Self-pinging for a longer read tomorrow.
Thanks for the post.
"..... his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty's negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, though in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions."
So, actually HE DID and it was not MERELY taking note. Your misrepresentations are duly noted.
If you are interested in the astonishing contribution of this man, I would suggest that you read further. I can give you some enlightening sources.
But if you wish to remain either biased or ignorant, then just ignore the suggestion.
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.