General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Declaration of Independence as Thomas Jefferson originally presented it.
A Declaration of the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, & to assume among the powers of the earth the equal & independent station to which the laws of nature & of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change.
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses & usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, & pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to subject them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government & to provide new guards for their future security. such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; & such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government. the history of his present majesty, is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which no one fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, all of which have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. to prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.
he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good;
he has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate & pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has neglected utterly to attend to them;
he has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation, a right inestimable to them, formidable to tyrants alone;
he has dissolved Representative houses repeatedly & continually, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people;
he has refused for a long space of time to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, & convulsions within;
he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither; & raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands;
he has suffered the administration of justice totally to cease in some of these colonies, refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers;
he has made our judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and amount of their salaries;
he has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, & sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people & eat out their substance;
he has kept among us in times of peace standing armies & ships of war;
he has affected to render the military, independent of & superior to the civil power;
he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their pretended acts of legislation, for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
for protecting them by a mock-trial from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
for imposing taxes on us without our consent;
for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;
for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences;
for taking away our charters, & altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
for suspending our own legislatures & declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever;
he has abdicated government here, withdrawing his governors, & declaring us out of his allegiance & protection;
he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns & destroyed the lives of our people;
he is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation & tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty & perfidy unworthy the head of a civilized nation;
he has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, & conditions of existence;
he has incited treasonable insurrections in our fellow-subjects, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property;
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury. a prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of 12 years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered & fixed in principles of liberty.
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. we have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend a jurisdiction over these our states. we have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration & settlement here, no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expence of our own blood & treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league & amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and we appealed to their native justice & magnanimity, as well as to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which were likely to interrupt our correspondence & connection. they too have been deaf to the voice of justice & of consanguinity, & when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have by their free election re-established them in power. at this very time too they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch & foreign mercenaries to invade & deluge us in blood. these facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce for ever these unfeeling brethren. we must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and to hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. we might have been a free & great people together; but a communication of grandeur & of freedom it seems is below their dignity. be it so, since they will have it: the road to glory & happiness is open to us too; we will climb it in a separate state, and acquiesce in the necessity which pronounces our everlasting Adieu!
We therefore the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled do, in the name & by authority of the good people of these states, reject and renounce a11 allegiance & subjection to the kings of Great Britain & all others who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve & break off a11 political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us & the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these a colonies to be free and independent states, and that as free & independent states they shall hereafter have power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, & to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, & our sacred honour.
That a slaveholding man whose very livelihood depended upon the institution would pen such a document astounds me every time I read the original, unedited version.
It was very watered down for the eyes of King George and the sensibilities of the Southern Colonies.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Uncle Joe
(58,361 posts)Thanks for the thread, MohRokTah.
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)It is always a pleasure to read and reflect on history.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)Not in a good way.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"owned" the mother of some of his children as well as some of his own offspring, though Ms Hemmings did persuade him to free one or two of his sons.
So, what are we to make of that?
The Declaration of Independence, of course, was exactly that, a document that said "We are no longer subjects of George III" and then went on to explain why. But it was never intended to be the law of the land that gave anyone enforceable rights and it is not the law of the land.
The Constitution, which was intended to be the law of the land, did not contain any of that appealing (to males, anyway) "all men are created equal" stuff. It's content certainly did not reflect that all men were equal. It did not, initially, even contain a bill of rights.
Speaking of historical documents and the bill of rights, an original counterpart of the Magna Carta, the foundation of our Bill of Rights, is on display at the Museum of Fine Arts until September 1. It represented at the time (1215 C.E.) a new concept: that citizens had some rights. Until then, only monarchs had rights.
If you cannot view counterpart in person, you may want to check out the website for the exhibit.
http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions
Uncle Joe
(58,361 posts)either timid or shrewd when it came to rocking the boat in his world, a product of his time and place but maybe just a little bit more than that.
"So, what are we to make of that?"
littlemissmartypants
(22,656 posts)His love of France is attractive and I am pretty sure he would raise a glass with class. Other than that well...
Uncle Joe
(58,361 posts)handle names here at D.U. "littlemissmartypants" 
merrily
(45,251 posts)I may look at it somewhat differently, but I more than understand that each person will have his or her own answer to that question.
Uncle Joe
(58,361 posts)subjective interpretation of that gem depends on the facet that you're gazing through.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I get sick of people acting like it's Holy Writ or Divinely Inspired.
Jefferson recommended a rewrite every 75 years to keep up with the times.
Hell, it had ten amendments right out of the bucket. It now has thirty-three.
Some of those are revisions of the supposedly "perfect" original.
merrily
(45,251 posts)charter.
I get sick of people acting like it's Holy Writ or Divinely Inspired.
Not a holy writ or Divinely inspired, but not too shabby, either. In any event, it's our law. If we ignore it whenever we like, there goes the rule of law. And, I'm fond of the rule of law. (I'm not into Framer worship, but that is a different issue.)
Jefferson recommended a rewrite every 75 years to keep up with the times.
Too bad Jefferson (and Madison and the rest) didn't make the amendment process easier, then. There were no formal parties then, but there were plenty of factions and disagreements. That should have given the Framers a clue that the amendment provisions should have been less difficult to satisfy. When people don't agree on what's good for America and Americans, amendment of the Constitution, like just about everything else, is going to get gridlocked.
Even Scalia said he might have done the amendment provisions differently.
Hell, it had ten amendments right out of the bucket.
No surprise. The state legislatures said they would not ratify without them. So, the Framers promised to get them out for ratification ASAP. And six months later, by gum, they were out AND ratified.
If you had just seen the people revolt against King George and the redcoats and win, and you were now the PTB instead of George, Rex, you probably would have gotten those amendments out ASAP, too.
After all, it's not always good to be the king. (Apologies to Mel Brooks.)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)All the high and mighty assholes taking advantage of every loophole would freak out.
merrily
(45,251 posts)how a constitutional convention would play out.
Congress? Frankly, I'd be a little worried.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)All of Sharia law was incorporated by reference.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The ERA was the first issue driven campaign I worked on and it pisses me off that people today don't even know that it didn't pass.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Abolitionism was a fairly new idea.
Abolitionism is a movement to end slavery, whether formal or informal. In Western European and America, abolitionism was a historical movement to end the African and Indian slave trade and set slaves free. The Spanish King in Spain following the example of the Swedish Monarch passed a law which would have abolished colonial slavery in 1542, although this law was not passed in the largest colonial states, and so was not enforced. Later, in the 17th century, English Quakers and evangelical religious groups condemned slavery (by then applied mostly to Africans) as un-Christian; in the 18th century, abolition was part of the message of the First Great Awakening in the Thirteen Colonies; and in the same period, rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized it for violating the rights of man. James Edward Oglethorpe was among the first to articulate the Enlightenment case against slavery, banning it in the Province of Georgia on humanistic grounds, arguing against it in Parliament, and eventually encouraging his friends Granville Sharp and Hannah More to vigorously pursue the cause. Soon after his death in 1785, they joined with William Wilberforce and others in forming the Clapham Sect.[1] The Somersett's case in 1771, which emancipated a slave in England, helped launch the British movement to abolish slavery. Though anti-slavery sentiments were widespread by the late 18th century, the colonies and emerging nations that used slave labor continued to do so: French and English territories in the West Indies, South America, and the South of the United States.
After the American Revolutionary War established the United States, northern states, beginning with Pennsylvania in 1780, passed legislation during the next two decades abolishing slavery, sometimes by gradual emancipation. Massachusetts ratified a constitution that declared all men equal; freedom suits challenging slavery based on this principle brought an end to slavery in the state. In other states, such as Virginia, similar declarations of rights were interpreted by the courts not applicable to Africans. During the following decades, the abolitionist movement grew in northern states, and Congress regulated the expansion of slavery in new states admitted to the union.
Revolutionary France abolished slavery in 1794, but it was restored by Napoleon in the French colonies in 1802. Haiti achieved independence from France in 1804 and brought an end to slavery in its territory, establishing the second republic in the New World. Britain banned the importation of African slaves in its colonies in 1807, and the United States criminalized the international slave trade in the following year. Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies abolished it in 1848 and the United States in 1865.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
Think of our attitudes toward the employer-employee relationship. Think of the economic disparity that few of us dare question on pain of being labeled "socialist." Think of our unquestioning support of the idea of just war.
Who knows what ideas we all accept as a matter of course will, in a more enlightened society, be considered shockingly hard and calloused.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.
So, he believed that slavery was very, very wrong, but he kept his own slaves anyway. For that matter, I suspect most or all slaveowners knew somewhere inside that slavery was wrong, but kept their slaves anyway.
I once posted (not here) that Eisenhower was racist. Someone replied that he was only a product of his time. So, I googled and found quotes from Adlai Stevenson condemning racism.
I just posted something on another thread here about having been told that Hagel's homophobia in 1998 was excusable because even that time was supposedly so different.
So, for me, anyway, the "man of his time" rationale ain't necessarily so.
Think of our attitudes toward the employer-employee relationship.
What wrong attitudes do we supposedly have about that and are we violating any of our principles about that? And, if we are violating our own principle about that, are we doing things we ourselves consider moral depravity and violative of the laws of nature? If so, shame on us is all I have to say. I think we ought to modify our behavior until we do not feel as though we are participating in moral depravity.
Think of the economic disparity that few of us dare question on pain of being labeled "socialist."
I dare question it and I do a number of things about it as well; and I don't care at all which fools attach what names to me on account of that. Aren't many of us Democrats exactly because we want someone in power also to do things about it?
Think of our unquestioning support of the idea of just war.
I have not been unquestioning about war since my teens.
The only war that most people I know think was just was the war against Hitler. At least, it's the war everyone brings up when I say I am a pacifist--as though it were like any other situation in all of human history.
I don't necessarily think any side fought entirely justly, but 12 million people had been tortured, starved and murdered, with more waiting for the same.
Just war? I don't know. Lesser of two evils in that one instance (assuming the most ethical behavior--like say, NOT dropping nuclear bombs on Japan). Yes. Would I have fought in that war if there were no other way to stop the slaughter (say, finding a way to assassinate Hitler and a few top leaders)? Yes.
Would I have fought in that war if I believed that fighting in that war would be moral depravity? No.
I am not a goody two shoes. I admit to having done things I strongly believed were wrong, perhaps not moral depravity, but wrong. I very highly recommend against it.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Not black people who he probably didn't consider human.
Bucky
(54,013 posts)He was opposing the slave trade, not slavery itself. Those were separate issues back then.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)I still don't think he considered them human. And slave trade and slavery went hand in hand.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
vlakitti
(401 posts)and terrific research! Thank you for your work on this piece.
Quixote1818
(28,936 posts)Franklin told Jefferson to take it out because they needed all the colonies to be united against England. They decided it was a battle for a later day. As to why Jefferson didn't release his slaves? Well, this is no excuse but I imagine that would have been a huge disadvantage for his plantation. He was an enigma to be sure.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Jefferson planned to free his slaves but was bankrupt. The slaves were sold to pay his debts. I think it was after his death. There was some story about the slaves or some of the slaves belonging to his wife. That's the story I read.
From an article on the Monticello websie:
Jefferson freed two men in his lifetime and bequeathed freedom to five men in his will. All were sons or grandsons of Elizabeth (Betty) Hemings. At least three others were unofficially freed, when he allowed them to run away without pursuit (Beverly Hemings, Harriet Hemings, and James Hemings, son of Critta Hemings Bowles).
A single paragraph cannot do justice to the issue of Jefferson's failure to free more than a handful of his slaves. Some of the possible reasons include: the economic value of his human property (at certain times, his slaves were mortgaged and thus could not be freed or sold); his lifelong view that emancipation had to go hand-in-hand with expatriation of the freed slaves; his paternalistic belief that slaves were incapable of supporting themselves in freedom and his fear they would become burden to society; his belief in gradual measures operating through the legal processes of government; and, after 1806, a state law that required freed slaves to leave Virginia within a year. Jefferson wrote that this law did not "permit" Virginians to free their slaves; he apparently thought that, for an enslaved African American, slavery was preferable to freedom far from one's home and family.
http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/property
Bucky
(54,013 posts)It was Washington who freed his slaves (but was powerless to free his wife's). Jefferson often sold off his slaves to settle debts. He was a strong defender of slavery in his later years.
merrily
(45,251 posts)At one or more points in time, biographers were supposed to glorify their subjects, not simply tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So, the stuff that has come down to us may be romanticized to one degree or another.
Bucky
(54,013 posts)This is interesting. Based on books I've read about it, Jefferson grew more vocal in his support of slavery in his later years. At least in his early career, he had the decency to be a hypocrite. But his political actions were limited to opposing the slave trade, not slavery itself. Most people don't separate those issues. In our time, that would be like failing to separate opposing car imports from the political issue of getting gas-guzzlers off the roads. Virginian slaveholders didn't like slave traders because they were undercutting market prices.
When I googled the phrase "Jefferson on slavery" I got this:
http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery
Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the ...
Thomas Jefferson and slavery - Wikipedia, the free ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and slavery has been extensively debated by his biographers, and by scholars of slavery. He owned plantations ...
Jefferson on Slavery < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents ...
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-on-slavery.php
It has often been quoted because of the eloquent appeal to end slavery as degrading to the Southern family and endangering the liberty of all. Jefferson was one ...
The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson | History | Smithsonian
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/
In his original draft of the Declaration, in soaring, damning, fiery prose, Jefferson denounced the slave trade as an “execrable commerce ...this assemblage of ...
The Real Thomas Jefferson - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html
Nov 30, 2012 - Neither Mr. Meacham, who mostly ignores Jefferson's slave ownership, nor Mr. Wiencek, who sees him as a sort of fallen angel who comes to ...
Notice that Monticello.org takes the hagiographic pose: "consistent opponent of slavery his whole life." This is bullshit. You could argue reasonably that he opposed slavery on some principles, but it defies dictionary definitions to call him consistent about it. The man sold slaves to settle his debts, for criminey's sake.
This is TJ in 1814 on slavery:
Nor in the class of laborers do I mean to withhold from the comparison that portion whose color has condemned them, in certain parts of our Union, to a subjection to the will of others. Even these are better fed in these States, warmer clothed, and labor less than the journeymen or day-laborers of England. They have the comfort, too, of numerous families, in the midst of whom they live without want, or fear of it; a solace which few of the laborers of England possess. They are subject, it is true, to bodily coercion; but are not the hundreds of thousands of British soldiers and seamen subject to the same, without seeing, at the end of their career, when age and accident shall have rendered them unequal to labor, the certainty, which the other has, that he will never want?... But do not mistake me. I am not advocating slavery. I am not justifying the wrongs we have committed on a foreign people, by the example of another nation committing equal wrongs on their own subjects. On the contrary, there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity."
Like so many of Jefferson quotes, this requires a bit of unpacking. He compares slaves' living conditions and clothing favorably to those of laborers and soldier of England. First off, this presents a pretty damn rosy view of real slave conditions. A few slaves were well fed & clothed, particularly those who worked in households. But the majority of slaves were off in tobacco, cotton, & sugar plantations, living in rags, dying from working conditions, and subject to family separation and personal humiliation beyond the touch of law in ways that even press-ganged redcoats and destitute coal miners were not.
This is one of slavery's oldest lies: at least they're treated better than factory workers. But bad as life was for the poor whites, there was at least hope for escaping circumstances and the comforts of family bonds. Jefferson wilfully glosses over the brutality happening literally in his own back yard.
Further, he says bluntly "do not mistake me. I am not advocating slavery." But in fact he did do exactly that. He wanted a plan to work toward ending slavery--usually in the form of paying off slaveholders (not the actual slaves, however). But he never himself offered a plan, much less offering any actual "sacrifice to a practicable plan." This is posery.
In 1816 he wrote this howler: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-on-slavery.php
It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense 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.
TJ is anticipating a race war (this is 16 years after Haiti's blood soaked revolution against France, a democratic revolt that Jefferson helped France to suppress). What he's leading up to is arguing for forced colonization to Africa alongside a policy of inducing white settlers to fill the void of a denegrofied Dixieland. So much for Mr. Small Government. Of course any such social reengineering was unworkable and something Jefferson never bothered to work for.
He continues:
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 immovable 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.
When other men of his age were able to see that circumstance of birth, not "natural symmetry" and hair texture, accounted for intellectual differences. Presumedly his own children by Sally Hemings were not of that "eternal monotany" and "immovable veil of black" that field slaves suffered from, but then they were no more than 1/8th black (Sally's mother was a mulatto and her father was Thomas Jefferson's father-in-law - I'll let you do the math on that point).
These race-centered conclusions tell us how much exposure Jefferson had to the thoughts & lives of field hands. His neurosis about black men lusting for white women finds a bizarre parallel in orangutans lusting for black women. This is the infancy of the psychosexual perversions revealing the worst mental distortions of racism. He's embracing unsubstantiated facts in order to justify his inhumane conclusions about racial differences. This is what Lord Acton meant about absolute power corrupting absolutely.
The Smithsonian article http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/ goes into more detail on how Jefferson pretty much stopped talking about ending slavery by the 1790s. His energies turned to opposing the Federalist Party of Washington and Hamilton, which politically anchored his fortunes to the slaveholding interest. Working on gradual abolition plans at this point, just as cotton was booming as the "new tobacco," would have been political suicide. Jefferson very carefully made his political bed and laid in it for the rest of his life.
The Monticello.org line about "consistent opponent of slavery his whole life" is baseless propaganda.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I am so glad I asked you a question.
I did, in fact, google "Jefferson slavery" and, without noticing it, I probably did get monticello.org.
Quixote1818
(28,936 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)having that power over other humans. Some -- not all, just some (a very few, in fact) -- were freed upon his death. That's a contradiction, right there. And not a pretty one either.
And his wife's half sister Sally didn't have a choice, romantic movies softening the bitter reality of her existence notwithstanding.
I'll tell you, the Supreme Court of today would have had a field day with We hold these truths to be sacred...
Hobby Lobby would be selling sticks to beat the womenfolk with that were no bigger around than a man's thumb...! There'd probably be laws on the books about "keeping sweet" for the menfolk, ladies, to avoid any kind of a beating!
Intense 
for the irony impaired and obtuse.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Like other Southerners at his time, Jefferson seemed to question whether African slaves were really human. (my words because I don't know how to express what I am saying accurately.) He was a man of his culture and his time. He rose above it in some ways but not in others.
That is the human condition. It's the way we all are.
And, fortunately, people live and learn.
Even Scalia could, possibly change his mind about birth control. I'm not holding my breath, but our children and grandchildren sometimes teach us a thing or two. I guess that is how the world, at least the human part of it, evolves.
MADem
(135,425 posts)We can't impose our 20th and 21st Century mores on people from other eras--well, we CAN, but it's pointless to try and do it. We have to be situational and not focus overmuch on the political correctness of attitudes, otherwise it would just make us want to tear our hair out.
He was a bit of a weirdo when it came to slaves; he wouldn't do business with Haiti because those folks had the NERVE to create their nation as a consequence of an uprising. Sorta like America did, only the colonists weren't "enslaved" and they were fair of skin!
The bit about "expatriation" in that link of yours was a bit surprising, too--Marcus Garvey he ain't, but damn....
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This is an interesting thread that points out some of the terrible human conditions we ignore because it is socially acceptable in our society to ignore them.
When we think about or condemn Jefferson for his lack of moral courage, we should try to learn from his example and stop being oblivious to the terrible injustices in our own society.
Homelessness is, I suppose better than slavery. Maybe we should compare.
Let's see. Did slaves sleep under bridges?
Well, at least the homeless of today have possessions and maybe even have a shopping cart in which they can move them about.
Slaves were beaten mercilessly. Can happen to homeless people but not by masters, rather by the police or other homeless people or people who just don't like homeless people.
I could continue, but DUers can figure it out for themselves.
And, by the way, a lot of our very poor people and our homeless people are the offspring of former slaves. We've just changed a few of the details.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)I don't know if I want to go down that road with your argumentation.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)we don't even see our own mistakes and wrongs.
When we think how mistaken Jefferson was to accept the conventional wisdom of his time that justified slavery, we should ask ourselves about the living conditions that the people who labor for us in other countries. Think of the terrible working conditions in the factory in Bangla Desh and other third-world countries in which our clothing and the things we buy are made.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/world/asia/bangladesh-fire-kills-more-than-100-and-injures-many.html
I'm not saying that we should ignore the crimes of our ancestors, but rather that we should learn from their mistakes to question our own consciences throughout our lives.
In our day, electronic surveillance, still in its infancy could become a means for enslaving people to conform to certain behaviors. It is quite possible, but no one thinks about it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)homeless, if they could be free. It's more than "details." They'd sleep under that bridge and know that no man could order them to work for 12 hours a day, and their very shelter, nourishment and continued existence would depend so entirely on how well they submitted to the whims of their overlords.
Yes, there are a lot of injustices in the world, and there will continue to be many long after both of us are dead and gone.
That said, slavery is a pretty fricking BIG injustice. I don't think that there's many if any other crimes-- in the category that leaves the victim alive, anyway--quite so heinous, because it continues for the lifetime of the oppressed.
I don't think Jefferson lacked "moral courage"--I think he had a convoluted view of slaves and slavery. He used the condition to excoriate the British (look what you MADE us do!!!), he used the condition to deny recognition to a former slave state that was made whole by uprising (Haiti--don't want to do business with uppity slaves who are "dangerous" and "revolt"
, and he used his slaves--his wife's half sister specifically--for his personal amusement, and she had no say in the matter. His high-faluting words didn't match his daily life, and he didn't take care to make sure his "property" wasn't abused.
It's entirely fair to give him the hairy eyeball on these matters, while, at the same time, recognizing that he was a very smart guy who advanced some radical ideas for the time. Having views that are by our standards "inhumane" does not mean that the person holding the views is stupid or obtuse. They simply come from a society where those views are part of the fabric.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)rights of our environment?
The outrage we express toward Jefferson and those of his generation who did not think slaves were fully human seems so obvious to us.
My point is that while we enjoy feeling self-righteous and superior to our stupid ancestors (or at least stupid and morally questionable ancestors of some in our country), we do not look at the crimes that we as a society are committing -- such as using fossil fuels instead of developing alternatives and creating the infrastructure for the alternative fuels.
Or solving the problem of homelessness. Solving the problem of homelessness would cost our society and demand far fewer changes and economic losses to wealthy individuals than would instituting a program that insured good housing and other help for homeless people.
The problems that we have today that we consider to be less important than slavery may, some of them, cause future generations to look back at us and wonder how we could have been so terrible. It's so easy to condemn people in the past for their lack of moral understanding, but so hard to question our own moral turpitude.
Ruining the environment is moral turpitude. As is ignoring the needs of homeless people for decent shelter, food and dignity.
Jefferson tried to reform situations he understood to be wrong. Most Americans know that leaving the homeless to fend for themselves is wrong and many of us know that abusing the environment is wrong, but, like Jefferson, we tell ourselves it really isn't so bad because . . . the homeless are mentally ill and we can ignore them and we do care about the environment but fossil fuels are cheap. We are no different from Jefferson. We make the changes that are to our economic benefit, but even though in our consciences we feel and know something is wrong, we rationalize doing nothing to change it because doing nothing is in our economic interest.
There are so many wrongs that we ignore in our time. We have no business being really tough on Jefferson. He probably did more things right than we are doing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The arc of humanity bends towards justice and mercy.
Just because we, as a society, "ignore wrongs" in our time, doesn't mean we can't look back and say "Shit, that was REALLY, REALLY AWFUL!!" In fact, we SHOULD say those things when we look back at history--it might help attune our "goodness and mercy" meters.
And I don't know anyone who thinks Jefferson was stupid. I will say that, when it came to his personal enjoyments, his fine meals, his great wine, served so artfully via his dumbwaiter system, with slaves "slaving" below, as it were, to his wife's enslaved half-sister, he was not at all stupid--he was calculating and a bit, well, craven. His cravat didn't match his cummerbund, if you will. That's not stupidity--that's something else entirely. More of a "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude and it is not at all uncommon.
I don't think there's anything worse that you can do to an individual than enslave them. It's a punishment that never ceases until death takes the person.
That's not to say that homelessness and the envionment and mental illness and even hunger in the world (a biggie, IMO) aren't things we should be concerned about. I don't know about you, but I CAN walk and chew gum at the same time--lots of us can.
So, in sum--Homelessness/destroying environment/hunger/untreated mental illness...hell, add in lack of access to health care around the world, too....those are BAAAAD.
So's how Jefferson lived his day-to-day life, while touting ideals he ignored personally.
If I had to sum the guy up, I would call him a genius, but a VERY FLAWED one. We're better off for having had him, but he was not a saint. Not by a long shot. Who the hell is, really?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)conduct and excessive tolerance of injustice.
Both he and Adams were brilliant men. They gave us so much. We should neither worship them as saints nor immediately recall their failings the minute their names are mentioned. Adams had his faults too. His Alien and Sedition Act was deplorable, not as deplorable as holding slaves, but deplorable. Let's remember that Washington also benefited from the work of his slaves although he emancipated them after his wife died.
Adams, a Northerner, is said to have opposed slavery but did not ardently support abolitionism.
On January 24, 1801, President John Adams responded to two abolitionists who had sent him an anti-slavery pamphlet by Quaker reformer Warner Mifflin (1745–1798). In the letter, Adams expressed his views on slavery, the dangers posed by abolitionists (who at the time were mostly Quakers and unpopular religious radicals), and emancipation. Of slavery Adams writes, “my opinion against it has always been known,” noting that he has “always employed freemen both as Domisticks and Labourers, and never in my Life did I own a Slave.”
Adams, despite being opposed to slavery, did not support abolitionism except if it was done in a “gradual” way with “much caution and Circumspection.” Adams dismisses radical abolitionist measures as “produc[ing] greater violations of Justice and Humanity, than the continuance of the practice” of slavery itself. Adams also wrongly asserts that “the practice of Slavery is fast diminishing.” Rather than declining, slavery was growing in America. The 1790 census counted almost 700,000 slaves. According to the census of 1800, the year before Adams wrote this letter, that number had grown to almost 900,000.
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/early-republic/resources/john-adams-abolition-slavery-1801
If we are going to condemn a Founding Father for his pro-slavery views, we should think first of James Madison, drafter of the Bill of Rights (ironically).
"Like many of his Virginia contemporaries, Madison seemed unable to come to terms with slavery. During the Revolution, he wrote a letter to Joseph Jones, stating his opposition to a Virginia proposal that would offer white enlistees slaves as a recruitment incentive.
When Madison went to Philadelphia to serve his first term in Congress, he took along Billey, one of his enslaved servants. While in Philadelphia, Billey sought his freedom. In a letter to his father, Madison explained that he was prohibited in Pennsylvania from selling Billey but had arranged for his indenture for seven years, writing that he "cannot think of punishing him by transportation merely for coveting that liberty for which we have paid the price of so much blood."
. . . I am persuaded his mind is too thoroughly tainted to be a fit companion for fellow slaves in Virga [Virginia]. . . . I do not expect to get near the worth of him; but cannot think of punishing him by transportation merely for coveting that liberty for which we have paid the price of so much blood, and have proclaimed so often to be the right, & worthy the pursuit, of every human being.
From "James Madison to James Madison Sr., September 8, 1783," images 69 and 70
Read the letter to Robert Evans, June 15, 1819, in which Madison states his views on the gradual emancipation of slaves. In the letter, Madison expresses the belief that prejudice would necessitate removal of emancipated slaves and suggests that the proposal to settle emancipated slaves in Africa "merits encouragement from all who regard slavery as an evil, who wish to see it diminished and abolished by peaceable & just means." In response to a letter from R. R. Gurley, Secretary of the American Colonization Society, Madison writes of his wishes for the society's success.
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/james-madison/history7.html
We prattle about the environment as we fuel up our cars. The environmental degradation we are leaving for our grandchildren will have dire consequences. We are forcing them to labor to heal the injuries we are now inflicting on our earth. That is a form of forced labor. We are incensed at the thought of slavery and rightfully so. But future generations may be just as incensed at the legacy of environmental damage we are leaving them. In particular, Fukushima comes to mind, and the Fukushimas and hot spots due to nuclear waste that are to come.
MADem
(135,425 posts)As for the environment, I'm getting old but I still do what I can--I suppose I could live in the woods and crap in a bucket, but that's kind of unreasonable! I use public transportation when I can, I drive a 28 year old subcompact that has under 90K miles (yes, those are original miles, much of them highway, and it just passed a rigorous MA inspection--I take good care of the thing) and I use well under a tank of gas a month, most months, unless I'm going on a road trip. I was using fluorescent bulbs in the EIGHTIES (living overseas--they were miles ahead of us, or should I say kilometers), I've transitioned to LEDs, I have energy efficient windows, solar LED floodlights in the back yard so I can see the dog taking a crap at three a.m., I keep the heat low in winter and close off big chunks of my house, I do the same in summer when I need a/c (like today--it's humid as hell), I recycle religiously and I don't consume stupidly (e.g. I am wearing a shirt I bought thirty years ago--it's very good quality and hardly shows any wear). I don't do a lot of "processed" stuff or the latest craze (large exception: energy efficient appliances). Use it up, wear it out. In sum, I do the best I can. Is it enough? Maybe not, but I'll be gone eventually, dust to dust, and all that. Someone else can take my place and we'll see--or not--how THEY do!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)when we take it out, but our black (ordinary garbage bin) is nearly empty. I compost. I garden. I sew. I knit. We heat only the front of the house in winter. (But that is not much of a sacrifice for us because we live in Southern California.) I travel by rail or walk whenever possible. (Again, no sacrifice. I don't really like to drive.) My husband drives a Honda from the early 1990s. My Honda is 1996. My husband keeps them in tip-top shape. We wear old clothes until they are full of holes, and then I tear them up, hem them if necessary and use them as cleaning rags.
I think it might be a generational thing. My parents grew up during the Great Depression and my husband was born in Europe in WWII. I was also born during WWII but in the American Midwest where food was not scarce. I do not believe in waste.
But I also realize that it is easy to criticize the morals or lack thereof of people who lived in different times, butt very hard to acknowledge and struggle against the commonly accepted but cruel social mores of one's own times.
I am not pointing a finger at anyone when I say that. I am just pointing out that we can learn from the mistakes of Jefferson as we do from other mistakes in history.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)It helps us understand out heritage and helps us realize that the founding fathers were bastards, for the most part. Washington continues to amaze me. I didn't know he gave up his slaves at death. Dude was cool.
MADem
(135,425 posts)using 21st Century paradigms to explain 18th Century conduct.
_
It is what it is.
It used to be "OK" ( for the irony impaired) to pay women less than men--people still try to get away with it, but they don't boast about it like they used to ("Oh, he has a family to support, women just work for "pin money" until they find a man..." .
We can say "Wow, that sucks" without freaking out about why they did what they did (they could get away with it, and the society supported that kind of discrimination at the time).
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Bucky
(54,013 posts)He was a vociferous defender of the peculiar institution, growing stronger in his convictions while the rest of the country was growing more and more uncomfortable with the obvious hypocrisy. Pinning the guilt for the slave trade on the Crown was both silly and politically unastute. Virginians tended to oppose the slave trade because they were rich in "domestic stock" while Deep Southerners wanted more imports, which undercut the prices Virginians and Marylanders could sell their surplus off at.
Indeed, in his personal affairs, Jefferson, unlike George Washington, never scrupled over selling off "his people" to settle up his debts.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 4, 2014, 07:22 AM - Edit history (2)
to have been able to work out some kind of voluntary paid agreement between himself and anyone working his estate. But he didn't. He preferred incentives instead of punishments to get his slaves to work but he still held them against their will. Some of his slaves were even beaten by overseers.
"Often absent from Monticello, Jefferson did not always succeed in lessening the violence of slavery. Several slaves were whipped at the hands of Monticello overseers. For example, William Page, an overseer at Lego farm for four years, had a reputation as a “terror” among slaves and was characterized as “peevish & too ready to strike.” William McGehee, an overseer at Tufton farm for two years, was “tyrannical” and carried a gun “for fear of an attack from the negroes.” And Gabriel Lilly, a nailery manager and overseer at Monticello for five years, whipped James Hemings three times in a single day, even when he was too ill “to raise his head.”
He could have easily found workers to engage in voluntary work for payment. But instead he held on to the slaves he had and even purchased more himself on occasion and profited off the sale of over one hundred.
"Despite his expressed "scruples" against selling slaves except "for delinquency, or on their own request," he sold more than 110 in his lifetime, mainly for financial reasons."
http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/property
I really don't care to hear about any of the "redeeming qualities" of any of the slave owning floundering fathers. I'm sure there were a lot of slave owners in the south possessed of many other talents. We don't give them any slack so why we give the floundering fathers who owned slaves so much respect is, I think, a testament to how brainwashed we really are. If what they created was really such a big deal this country wouldn't be in the ideological mess it is in now, there would have been no civil war, no wars against the First Peoples, no need to fight later for voting rights, and we would have a lot more explicit understanding and control over domestic gun violence. If anything, the things they have written have made some of our present citizenry extreme and intractable in their views because the glorious and infallible floundering fathers held the same views, as short-sighted and incompatible with the modern age as some of those out-dated views are.
I think if we were all able to go back in time and really get a first hand look at some of these men, we wouldn't understand the hero worship. It would be like watching a movie from the 30's or 40's or Mad Men. Our parents think the actors on the screen are, for the most part, heroes and role models but the younger generation sees mostly brutish thugs.
ancianita
(36,055 posts)sion. We noted some of the same things, along with examining its rhetoric.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Sad but true. It's rather clear to me, I think, that Jefferson had no real love of the institution & was already conflicted, even if he DID inherit slaves himself.
Thanks for the post. And happy Fourth to you. 