Posted on 04/13/2017 6:58:51 PM PDT by brucedickinson
Pittman replied, "And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it? Lincoln was the same sort of tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional." Pittman did not respond to request for comment from TIME to clarify his remarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
“I never said that I found any part of the DOI immoral and I haven’t seen anyone produce a post of mine to that effect.”
I take it you stand by what you wrote in Post 214 (”I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government”) which indicates disagreement with my Post 230 position (”And they used the Declaration of Independence to convey the moral right for their rebellion”) yet you write “I never said that I found any part of the DOI immoral”.
Okay.
“Short answer: no.”
Thank you for a clear answer.
“The “excited domestic insurrections” remained and had absolutely no relationship to the “long passage”.”
You say “remained”? I can not find the term “excited domestic insurrections” anywhere in the original draft of the DOI.
Where do you find it in the original draft?
Claremont Institute interpolates the phrase with brackets [...].
“BroJoeK:Great expression! I think I'll save it for future reference. ;-)”
Yet another example of supposed in-group members influencing each other to create non-group stereotype.
Right. They interpolate.
Interpolate: alter (a book or text) by insertion of new material.
My question for HandyDandy remains: Where do you find the phrase “excited domestic insurrections” in the original draft?
I ask the original poster to produce the moral claims that he sees in the DOI and you claim that I’m therefore claiming that the DOI is immoral. Well that makes it clear- logic isn’t your strong point.
The DOI isn’t a moral treatise. It’s a list of grievances against the the London government and the announcement that the locals are choosing to break away and form their own. It’s a lawyer’s brief aimed at persuading undecided Colonials to support the rebellion and an attempt to recruit foreign recognition.
You state “there were no, zero, nada slave revolts at that time.”
But Jefferson's long paragraph about slavery stated, “he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us . . .”
Let's be clear: you do not have a dispute with me. You have a dispute with Thomas Jefferson.
Stop being coy. It is unbecoming of you. You know I am using the “excited domestic insurrection” phrase to reference the clause. It is irrelevant to my charge, that you purposely lied, that in the first rough draft the clause is worded “excited treasonable insurrection”. It is the same clause and has the same meaning. The salient point is that the clause (however worded in any of the drafts) absolutely does not in any way, shape or form have anything to do with slaves or slavery. Therefore, that leaves no reference to Slavery in the final draft of the Declaration of Independence.
I didn't see where you asked "the original poster to produce the moral claims that he sees in the DOI".
I did see you ask in Post 175 "And what exactly do you think was the moral right for the colonials to secede from Britain?" but I missed any mention of the DOI.
And I saw you ask in Post 310 "And so what is on this list of Legitimate Causes and who exactly compiled it?" but I missed any mention of the DOI.
And in Post 214 you wrote "I still am waiting to see what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government.", but that wasn't a question.
And in Post 230 I responded to that with "And they used the Declaration of Independence to convey the moral right for their rebellion. What parts of the Declaration do you find immoral?"
Then in Post 232 you responded to Post 230 with "I never said it I found any part of it immoral, so you’ll need to ask someone who makes that claim to get that answer. "
But again, I didn't see where you asked "the original poster to produce the moral claims that he sees in the DOI".
...and you claim that I’m therefore claiming the DOI is immoral.
I don't mean to make that claim. You don't seem to accept it as conveying "what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government" but whether you claim it is immoral, morally neutral, or something else I don't recall saying.
Well that makes it clear- logic isn’t your strong point.
Would you like to call me a Nazi next? You could call me a "Hitler" and that might bring us closer to the post that started this thread.
The DOI isn’t a moral treatise.
I don't see that it has to be in order to "convey the moral right for their rebellion".
A definition of Moral by Merriam-Webster is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior."
Definitions of Moral in Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1785 are "1. Relating to the practice of men towards each other, as it may be virtuous or criminal, good or bad. 2. Reasoning or instruction with regard to vice and virtue."
I think the DOI complies with those definitions sufficient to convey "what moral right there was for the British colonials seceding from their mother government" which you are waiting to see. And I'm sure that you disagree and that continuation here is pointless.
And the congregation said, “AMEN!!!”
{sigh} Yet more socio-psycho babble from a Lost Cause mythologizer.
Anything to avoid making serious response, much less acknowledge the truth.
The historical fact is there were no slave revolts at that time but there were several "domestic insurrections" of loyalists against patriots.
So Jefferson's claim that "he is now exciting those very people " may have been too much of an exaggeration for inclusion in the Declaration's final version.
That's not BroJoeK with a dispute against Mr. Jefferson, that was his fellow Founders.
When I make a mistake/mis-state something I acknowledge and own it. An example is my post 323:
“My statement that Jefferson did not include the reference to “merciless Indian savages” in the draft DOI is wrong. Jefferson DID include it in the draft but a couple of paragraphs away from the paragraph starting, “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself . . .”
I did not initially see it in my search. I regret the error.”
Sure, there was a temptation to deny that I made an error, to go on offense, and to blame someone else. That didn't seem like the right thing to do.
In this instance you have garbled an important point you were trying to make. The texts of the two clauses - and the context of the times - undermines your contention the north wanted nothing to do with slavery.
So what if you made a mistake? Making a mistake about something that happened nearly 250 years ago is no shame.
You are ducking and dodging, bobbing and weaving. You are rope-a-doping. You have lost credibility with me. I cannot help you with what ails you. Good luck to you.
That's not my style.
When I find I'm wrong I acknowledge the error and own it. For example, in post 323 I wrote: “My statement that Jefferson did not include the reference to “merciless Indian savages” in the draft DOI is wrong. Jefferson DID include it in the draft but a couple of paragraphs away from the paragraph starting, “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself . . .”
I did not initially see it in my search. I regret the error.”
It may be your fault-finding is with my wry sense of humor as when I replied (post 81)to a northern brethren with the quip: "My degree is in psycho-ceramics. That’s the study of cracked pots. I find your comments very interesting."
That was just a soft answer to a mean-spirited attack. I hope that our future discussions will be free of difficulty.
“I reckon so. I guess we all died a little in that damn war.”
Still, expert northern brethren right here on this thread have said:
“Jefferson's term “domestic insurrections” may or may not refer to Dunmore’s Proclamation of 1775, or to rumors of British inspired slave rebellions, or even to such “domestic insurrections” as the burning of Norfolk (January 1776) after British war ships bombarded it."
And this: “Bottom line: one item of 35 may or may not refer to slave rebellions, while another deleted item specifically blames the King for slavery."
And this: “But “domestic insurrections” in 1777 could refer to almost anything, including Dunmore’s proclamation of 1775, rumors of slave revolts or any other uprising against local authorities such as the burning of Norfolk in January."
So, critic answers critic.
That reminds me of a line from the movie, “Outlaw Josey Wales” - one of my favorite movies.
There is an interesting back-story about author Forrest Carter (writer of the novel upon which the movie was based) and his supposed connection to Southerner Asa Earl Carter.
My biggest mistake was giving jeffersondem the benefit of my doubts about Thomas Jefferson.
Neither Mr. Jefferson nor jeffersondem deserved it, and here's why:
One of jeffersondem's most outrageous claims is: our Founders in 1776 declared independence and went to war against the Brits in order to protect slavery.
Jeffersondem quoted Mr. Jefferson's phrase, "he has excited domestic insurrections" as proof.
I'd never seen such a claim made (for good reason!) and could find very little discussion on it, and what I did find does not seem very informed.
So, lacking other reasons I (big mistake!) gave jeffersondem the benefit of my doubt, allowing that "excited domestic insurrections" coulda', maybe, possibly sorta' might refer to slave revolts.
Later I looked some more, dug deeper and learned there were no slave revolts at that time, but there were several "domestic insurrections" between loyalists to Britain versus American patriots.
So those have to be what Jefferson referred to.
As for Jefferson's deleted paragraph, which blames slavery on the King, saying the King would not permit its abolition.
Jefferson then says:
This seems a reference to Lord Dunmore's proclamation, but Jefferson does not here say "domestic insurrection" because Dunmore did not "excite domestic insurrection" in the form of slave revolts.
Rather he called for servants of all kinds to join the British army.
So Mr. Jefferson's phrases "rise in arms among us" and "murdering the people" can accurately refer to Dunmore's invitation for joining the British army.
Bottom line: my post #263 that "Bottom line: one item of 35 may or may not refer to slave rebellions, while another deleted item specifically blames the King for slavery," is incorrect.
On closer review of Jefferson's words and historical events, "excited domestic insurrections" cannot refer to non-existent slave revolts but must to actual "domestic insurrections" from loyalists to Britain.
Further, the accurate language in Jefferson's deleted paragraph was too carefully constructed to be reduced to the simple phrase "he has excited domestic insurrections", even though that is what's often alleged.
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.