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’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.”
When stereotype-inconsistent information meets cultural predisposition, the information is often rejected. That’s human nature and appears to be what has happened to you in this case.
There’s a difference between an honest misunderstanding and a deceptive or deceitful one. jeffersondem’s province lies decidedly in the latter two. As a result, his/her tendency is to toss out a fragment of thought and lure you into guessing its context and meaning. Since none of us can possibly imagine what’s going on in that brain we invariably guess wrong and jeffersondem relishes the “victory”. jeffersondem loves the leftist art of splitting hairs. That act treads upon the notion that, split closely enough, anything can mean anything. jeffersondem also practices deflection where he shifts gears when it looks like his/her opposite has proven their point. Deflection is dishonest. And it’s all offered up in a coy fashion meant to distract and diffuse.
It reminds me of a vignette I saw on television of two kids riding in the back seat of an automobile on a long trip. The bratty little brother, being restless and bored, chooses to entertain himself by needling his older brother. One such tactic is to hold his outstretched finger a fraction of an inch away from his victim and declare, “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!” until his brother tires of the foolishness and socks him. The younger brother, having received a richly deserved education, then whines about the cruel treatment he is forced to endure.
jeffersondem calls it a “wry sense of humor”.
I call dishonest and exasperating and I won’t play it. You shouldn’t either.
“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.”
You read American history and interpret it.
Thomas Jefferson wrote American history.
There is a difference.
And yet again we see jeffersondem substituting socio-psycho babble for historical facts & reason.
The truth of this matter is that jeffersondem concocted an outrageous claim -- Founders Declared Independence to protect slavery -- for which no confirming evidence exists and plenty of opposing facts.
But having stuck his neck out so far, jeffersondem cannot let mere facts & reason intervene.
But I will spare everyone the socio-psycho babble about what may or may not be going on inside jeffersondem's alleged mind.
At one time - 48 hours ago - the writings of Thomas Jefferson “coulda’, maybe possibly sorta’ might refer to slave revolts.” Now, it's “an outrageous claim”.
What has changed other than an escalation in BJK’s desperation index?
If your complaint is that I don't telegraph what I will write three posts in advance, you have a valid point.
That's because I don't know what will be appropriate to write three posts later.
More to your point - at times I will allow a fish to run with the line before I set the hook and reel him in.
But I have never thrown a punch (meaning written jabs) at anyone that wasn't already in the scrimmage and that I didn't believe was big enough to take a hit and give it back as good as they got.
Sorry to mix the metaphors.
Mixing metaphors is the least of your sins. I can’t (won’t) speak for the others but I want a conversation while you want to play games (allow a fish to run with the line before I set the hook and reel him in).
You’re welcome to go play with yourself.
“I can’t (won’t) speak for the others but I want a conversation while you want to play games (allow a fish to run with the line before I set the hook and reel him in).”
Do you know who posted?:
“But having said that, I wouldn’t do a thing to stop or discourage them from their delusions. The left is bordering on total disengagement from reality. We can’t pull them back so the other option is to give them a gentle nudge.”
“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.”
And then there is this: “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.”
Now I’m confused. Is there “very little discussion” or is it “often alleged” ?
rockrr: "There’s a difference between an honest misunderstanding and a deceptive or deceitful one.
jeffersondem’s province lies decidedly in the latter two."
See my post #400 above.
I admit that changing opinions, be it ever so slightly, in the middle of a thread is never a good idea -- it confuses some and excites the jeffersondems to do what you're seeing.
But I plead in this case extenuating circumstances in that proper defense of Thomas Jefferson requires we don't accuse him of crimes or errors he didn't commit.
I this particular case our jeffersondem-on has accused Mr. Jefferson of declaring independence in 1776 in order to protect slavery.
jeffersondem cited the Declaration's phrase "excited domestic insurrections" as proof, since "domestic insurrections" must refer to Dunmore's Proclamation of 1775 and therefore to slave revolts, aka "domestic insurrections".
I see now my error was in granting jeffersondem-on the benefit of my doubts about Mr. Jefferson, which neither deserved.
A closer inspection of Dunmore's Proclamation and actual history shows:
Therefore it cannot be true that "excited domestic insurrections" refers to non-existent slave rebellions, which means the Declaration of Independence only mention of slavery was in Jefferson's deleted paragraph.
There he blames the King for:
Bottom line: the Declaration of Independence lists by my count 35 reasons, of which the only one which refers to slavery in any way was Mr. Jefferson's final deleted paragraph.
This paragraph by any reasonable reading is anti-slavery mentioning Dunmore's Proclamation only ironically and tangentially.
So, I now judge jeffersondem-on's accusation against Mr. Jefferson as yet another false, bogus and malicious attempt to justify 1861 secessionists by wrapping them in the mantle of our Founding Fathers.
jeffersondem-on is guilty of false accusation, Thomas Jefferson is innocent of jeffersondem-on's accusation.
Part of the problem I have with your explanations is that they are not only inconsistent with history, they are inconsistent with each other.
There is this: “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.”
Then there is this: “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.”
You are describing the same paragraph as “accurate language” that is “carefully constructed” and another time as “too much of an exaggeration”. It is hard to square that circle.
The interpolation is referencing the final official text, where the phrase occurs in relation to Indians, as it indicates in the draft.
The draft clearly separates the Indian question from the slavery question, if that is a subject of dispute.
I think "accurate language" and "carefully constructed" applies to all of Thomas Jefferson's deleted paragraph except the words, "by murdering the people" since that is not what Dunmore's proclamation actually called for.
So "by murdering the people" qualifies as "too much of an exaggeration," imho.
But the core question here is whether Thomas Jefferson's deleted phrase "he is now exciting those very people" equates to the D.O.I. included phrase "he has excited domestic insurrections".
I say "no", for reasons already given, jeffersondem says "yes" because that's the only thin thread of evidence you have to support your claim that 1776 slave-holding Founders "seceded" from Britain in order to protect their slavery, just like 1861 slave-holding Confederates seceded in order to protect their slavery.
Without equating those two phrases, jeffersondem has nothing on which to base your claims.
Of course most pro-Confederates are not willing to admit that protecting slavery motivated 1861 secessionists.
Regardless, slavery itself was only mentioned once by Thomas Jefferson -- in the deleted anti-slavery paragraph -- which makes jeffersondem's claims to the contrary bogus.
By stark contrast, 1861 secessionist mentioned slavery innumerable times in their "Reasons for Secession" documents, to the exclusion of any other serious reason.
It was jokes like this that killed Vaudeville.
Not an “only thin thread.”
Remember where the 1776 slave-holding Founders lived: New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Maryland.
It seems like there were others. Oh yes, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.
And remember, the same states that had made so much money owning and selling, and transporting and working slaves prior to the revolution - all 13 of those states would just a few years later vote to include slavery unambiguously in the U.S. constitution.
There was, of course, a reason that to them justified including slavery unambiguously in the U.S. constitution. The 13 states concluded it was in their best interest.
That's all you got?
No facts, no reasons, no arguments, just scoff?
Lose.
No, on further thought it now seems to me your claim is not an "only thin thread", it's only a broken thread, since there is no correct understanding of Mr. Jefferson's words, "excited domestic insurrections" which supports your claim it was all about slavery.
jeffersondem: "Remember where the 1776 slave-holding Founders lived: New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Maryland.
It seems like there were others.
Oh yes, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia."
In 1776 slavery was lawful in every British colony and most signers of the Declaration, North or South, had owned slaves at one time or another.
That included Benjamin Franklin who freed his slaves years earlier and was becoming an ardent abolitionist.
Moreover, even in 1776 we can see where nearly half the Northern delegates did not own slaves, while 92% of Southern delegates did own slaves.
Further, by 1787 five Northern states already began abolition and now 90% of the Constitution signing slaveholders were Southern.
Indeed, by 1787 only three Northerners did own slaves while just one Southern delegate did not own slaves (Gunning Bedford, Jr. from Pennsylvania serving as a Delaware delegate).
Regardless, jeffersondem's claim here is that Founders declared independence from Britain in order to protect slavery, and for that there's no evidence I've seen in either their words or deeds.
For the purpose of this post, let's stipulate that most northerners knew human bondage was morally wrong and that, in their hearts of good intentions, they really wanted to stop profiting from America's guest worker program.
If true, that would make the decision of northern states to vote to unambiguously include slavery in the U. S. constitution all the more appalling.
You have renounced reason.
When you make posts that are not even superficially plausible, I have replied at times with wry humor.
If you will stop making absurd arguments and name-calling, I will try to rein-in the funny stuff that is so damaging to your point of view.
Total rubbish. You have nothing to offer so resort to scoffs & nonsense.
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.