I have given you proof that from his very earliest political actions and publications, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent and ardent opponent of slavery. (Reference if you need it: Bear, James, A., Jefferson at Monticello. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1967.
He considered it vile practice, imposed upon the colonies by the Crown. I have given you evidence that he called the institution an ‘abominable crime,’ (you both have already seen that quote), a ‘moral depravity,’ He is quoted as using the terms ‘fatal stain’ and ‘hideous blot,’
Now X would have everyone believe that simply because he says that Jefferson did not speak often, his source being dubious at best, that he would be accurate in characterizing Jefferson's efforts as meaning nothing.
X, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but the facts stand behind Jefferson as a powerful and active slavery opponent.
Let's look again at what he did early in his political career. It is well documented that Jefferson took actions intended to influence fellow lawmakers, and put an end to slavery. He drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of enslaved Africans.
Then, again, in 1784 he proposed an ordinance banning slavery in the new territories of the Northwest.
It is clear that from the mid-1770s he was advocating many plans designed to stimulate emancipation.
As historian David Davis said, Jefferson was ‘one of the first statesmen anywhere to advocate concrete measures for eradicating slavery.’
I think that clears up your efforts to denigrate this Founding Father.
You are welcome to your feelings. No one is denigrating jefferson.
Yeah, let's see what else David B. Davis had to say about Jefferson:
But Jefferson himself did nothing to encourage gradual emancipation in the northeastern states; he was in France when Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance, and he later issued no public statements to defend or extend its free soil principles; as President, he expressed no regret over the extension of slavery into Louisiana; he made no comment when fellow Virginians sought to legalize slavery in Indiana and even pressed Congress to repeal the Northwest Ordinance. The final exclusion of slavery from Illinois was no more or no less "Jeffersonian" than was the admission of Missouri as a slave state. (Slavery in the Age of Revolution), pp. 168-9
So there it is in black and white. The witness Pea summons doesn't even agree with Pea's argument. And there's more elsewhere in the book. When "the chips were down ... he threw his weight behind slavery's expansion." (pp. 184-5)
_______________________
I guess what Pea is doing is cyberstalking. He keeps coming back to this dead thread posting the same stupid blather, unaware that the thread is dead, that he hasn't proved his point and that the world has moved on.
He isn't going to convince anybody he hasn't already convinced, and he's done more to turn people away from his point of view than to attract them to it.
I would suggest just declaring victory and not responding to his asininities and hoping he finally takes the hint.
Yay! We win! Whatsisname loses!