Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jefferson's Contradiction???

Rate this topic


tommyedison

Recommended Posts

I advocate a lot of things that I cannot act on. Am I being contradictory? But, I will act on the power that I have to affect what I can.

From what I understand, the founding fathers did what they could to secure a founding, our country. One of these things was not the end of slavery, but they did lay the groundwork for its eventual abolition.

I also read a line of Jefferson's paraphrased here: "I tremble with fear for my country when I think that God is just." This was in relation to the failure to abolish slavery, and that he knew the country would have to pay a dear price for this, and it did 40 years after his death.

Remember also three other facts. It is well documented that Jefferson treated his slaves as well as could be treated including no whipping and other such acts. And there wasn't a whole great deal avaliable at the time for a bunch of free slaves to gain. Most probably would have remained in his stay.

Lastly this was an institution that was imposed prior to Jefferson himself by a foreign power-Britain. People talk about the American slave times beginning with the 1600's and that is simply a falsehood. This place was simply a feifdom of the king of England until Jefferson and the others wrested it from his grip. Jefferson inherited his slaves and fought for the abolition of slavery while at the same time trying to form a republic.

And a mighty grand job he did at that. He was a giant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jefferson advocated the ban of slavery in the Bill of Rights. Yet till the end of his life, he kept 700 slaves. Isn't this a contradiction in the behavior of a man of fierce integrity and honesty?

I think he kept them so he could cover up Sally Hemmings' (sp?) pregnancy. It was his child and if he had let them all go it would have been more difficult to place the blame on someone else.

Well that and he was a INTJ (according to the Myers-Briggs) and our kind know that the rules don't apply to us. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Founding of America was the first time in history that man as an individual was to be set free from arbitrary government force. It was also the last chance for mankind to be free before a world of despotism wiped out the light. The French failed even with America as an example; Germany became a dictatorship; and Britain still gives lip service to the Monarchy.

Before the end of The Revolutionary war, all of mankind were slaves, and the only difference was one of degree. How different were serfs to slaves, and how different were serfs to colonial Americans? In essence, they all lived their lives by permission. Slavery is still not over, only the nature of the slave has changed: in Atlas Shrugged we are presented with the Innovative Industrialist.

American's were the first people to declare themselves free men according to the laws of nature, to shrug off the most common type of despot (The King), and succeed to build a nation revolving around the protection of the individual from criminals, including Kings who want you to work for them by force and to dispose of your production.

The liberation of black slaves was only an application of a wider and more fundamental liberation: that of the men who could conceive of such an idea, who could produce wealth to spread the vision, to implement laws and resolves to back it up, to train men and strategize battles, to rebuild after the desolation of war, to grow, to strive, to prosper.

There were fundamental ideas that caused the American Revolution, and every revolution. Why did such a revolution not happen in Africa? What ideas were missing in Africa that were present in America during the founding Era? Why did no country in Europe have such a revolution as America did? Surely, the issue of mysticism and "rationalism" have something to do with it.

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he kept them so he could cover up Sally Hemmings' (sp?) pregnancy.  It was his child and if he had let them all go it would have been more difficult to place the blame on someone else.

Well that and he was a INTJ (according to the Myers-Briggs) and our kind know that the rules don't apply to us.  :dough:

There is no proof that it was Jefferson's child. Do a search in the TIA archives for an article by Erica Daniels on the bogus nature of the Sally Hemmings affair. In short, the evidence shows that a Jefferson was the father but not Thomas. The overwhelmingly likely candidate was his brother who was a simpleton and much more predisposed to such a thing. The TIA article points out that Leftist historians have used the Hemmings affair as one tool in a concerted effort to slander Jefferson in particular and all of the Founding Fathers in gernal. The Left hates America and they have a special anitpathy for the original Framers.

Jefferson was a man of his time in many respects. He was a great man in so many ways but he was never able to overcome many of his southern, aristocratic sensibilities; one of them being slavery although he wrestled with the issue and had many rationalizations of why they couldn't be freed (some not entirely unreasonable from the perspective of a man of that age).

There is a tendency to penalize the good for not being perfect. Don't commit that mistake with Jefferson. If you are an American or living in America, you are living in a culture that offers the greatest protection of individual rights in the world. Jefferson is a major reason why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no proof that it was Jefferson's child. Do a search in the TIA archives for an article by Erica Daniels on the bogus nature of the Sally Hemmings affair. In short, the evidence shows that a Jefferson was the father but not Thomas. The overwhelmingly likely candidate was his brother who was a simpleton and much more predisposed to such a thing. The TIA article points out that Leftist historians have used the Hemmings affair as one tool in a concerted effort to slander Jefferson in particular and all of the Founding Fathers in gernal. The Left hates America and they have a special anitpathy for the original Framers.

I'll go and look up more information for you, but even when he was alive Sally was a scandal that his political opponents used against him.

Even if she did have his children, so what? Ideas stand on their own, independant of those who thought of them. Jefferson's work should be viewed for what it was and not who he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this would actually make a wonderful play.

Imagine Jefferson (Tom) is the father. Imagine he tried to hide and failed. Imagine he decides one day to make it public. Imagine he gets up his philosophic strength and justifies it out of true love because he was the man who taught Sally.

Imagine his political career devastated. I don't know the exact history but a great part of his historical glory would be sacrificed with the truth due to political intrigue.

And yet the man never repents. He justifies his love, he justifies his passion, he justifies his woman, and he justifies his daughter. "She is mine and she will not be a slave!"

I don't know what the penalty will be for a white man to father a black child, but if it is death, then I see my Jefferson standing tall and proud before the muskets of death.

A genius-liberator is put to death for fighting for the rights of his black child: This is the story.

Who else would defend the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence?

It is a glimpse of the better choices that our Fathers could have made. But it is still a great story. Perhaps Jefferson could have done more to save the black man--but he saved the white man, and man as such.

Thank-you, T.J.,

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is well documented that Jefferson treated his slaves as well as could be treated including no whipping and other such acts.

Not true. By his own account, Jefferson flogged slaves. And the flogging was especially severe when it was applied to the backs of runaways. Jefferson was also responsible for writing the slave code of Virginia, which put those who engaged in miscegenation outside the laws of the commonwealth, making them fair game for lynching.

See http://slate.msn.com/id/3126/

Lastly this was an institution that was imposed prior to Jefferson himself by a foreign power-Britain.

So? Prior to Jefferson, Britain also forced the quartering of armed troops in private homes. Yet somehow the new republic managed to get rid of that practice.

People talk about the American slave times beginning with the 1600's and that is simply a falsehood.

Really? The Virginia colony formally recognized slavery in 1661.

See http://www.ipl.org/div/timeline/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jefferson fought for the freeing of slaves well before he penned the Declaration of Independence. He did this free of charge.

Upon the writing of the Declaration of Independence he insisted that the slaves be freed. He was very upset when he wasn't able to make this happen. Franklin, who agreed with him, advised him that it would have to be done in small steps, and the Declaration was a start.

Jefferson was very adamant that slaves be treated well, and was very much concerned for their welfare. He did not free his slaves for three reason I know of 1> because laws at the time made it illegal, 2> because he was concerned that a ruthless owner would acquire one of them, and 3> because he was concerned with their abilities to take care of themselves in the conditions of that time.

One of his famous phrases about not freeing the slaves is that he considered it to be a "firebell in the night". Iows, he thought it meant trouble for the future, and there he was right.

Jefferson was miles ahead of most anyone in his time. He was a moral hero. 99% of us today would not have been as good as he morally, nor would we have been able to achieve as much. Remember, Jefferson helped make America possible, which lead to the freeing of slaves. That's his legacy. His severe critics are all the worse, because they are so blatantly unjust in their criticisms of him. They use our times to evalue him out of context.

These are usually the same people who judge capitalism of the 1800s by the standard of our lives today, rather than by the standards of life before the 1800s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlotte Corday

Really? The Virginia colony formally recognized slavery in 1661
And America became a country when? That's right, it was a British colony until 1776.

So? Prior to Jefferson, Britain also forced the quartering of armed troops in private homes. Yet somehow the new republic managed to get rid of that practice.

So? Those two things are not even comparable! That's as simple to get rid of as saying: "Don't do that anymore." Slavery was a much more pervasive and all encompassing problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jefferson fought for the freeing of slaves well before he penned the Declaration of Independence.

Then Thomas Jefferson the Emancipator was fighting none other than Thomas Jefferson the Slave Owner. In the end, Jefferson the Slave Owner won. At his death, Jefferson’s human property remained unfreed.

Jefferson was very adamant that slaves be treated well, and was very much concerned for their welfare.

I suppose that’s the reason why he whipped runaways. He didn’t want them to end up in one of those awful Yankee free states.

He did not free his slaves for three reason I know of 1> because laws at the time made it illegal,  2> because he was concerned that a ruthless owner would acquire one of them, and 3> because he was concerned with their abilities to take care of themselves in the conditions of that time.

In truth, Jefferson was a spendthrift whose lavish lifestyle wildly exceeded his means. He didn’t free his slaves for the simple reason that he refused to give up his books and fine wines. For example, he financed a shopping spree in France, by selling 85 slaves -- to other slave-holders (Paul Finkelman, Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson. Armonk, N.Y. and London: M.E. Sharpe, 1996, p. 150). The claim that it was illegal to free slaves is utterly fictitious. Jefferson’s fellow Virginian George Washington freed his slaves and not a disparaging word was heard.

His severe critics are all the worse, because they are so blatantly unjust in their criticisms of him. They use our times to evalue him out of context.

On the contrary, I’m using Jefferson’s own words against him. He said he regarded slavery as evil, yet did nothing to end it at his own doorstep. What’s the word for someone who doesn’t practice what he preaches?

And America became a country when? That's right, it was a British colony until 1776.

Ergo, slavery did exist in America in the 1600s -- British North America.

So? Those two things are not even comparable! That's as simple to get rid of as saying: "Don't do that anymore." Slavery was a much more pervasive and all encompassing problem.

The point is that the existence of slavery prior to Jefferson's time does not make Jefferson exempt from moral judgment, any more than prior centuries of witch burning made the judges of Salem, Mass. morally exempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Quotes by Charlotte Corday

Then Thomas Jefferson the Emancipator was fighting none other than Thomas Jefferson the Slave Owner. In the end, Jefferson the Slave Owner won. At his death, Jefferson’s human property remained unfreed
We all get the picture that Jefferson owned slaves. Next to his acheivements (with his fellow patriots)-including the establishment of a country that would on principle eradicate slavery-this does not hold water. We do not burn down the whole man for his flaws, not of a man of such acheivements as Jefferson.

I suppose that’s the reason why he whipped runaways. He didn’t want them to end up in one of those awful Yankee free states.

It is generally conceded that Jefferson was above par in being humane to his slaves (as far as that is possible, I mean, they are slaves). You say, oh but he had them whipped. Well, that is what you do with slaves. You are using our present sentiments to judge him when this was not in any way abnormal back then. The whole thing is based on force. What are you going to do, bribe them? That is employment. Ask them nicely?

On the contrary, I’m using Jefferson’s own words against him. He said he regarded slavery as evil, yet did nothing to end it at his own doorstep. What’s the word for someone who doesn’t practice what he preaches?
This is the only affirmative attribute you can ascribe to Jefferson? Hypocrite? Washington let his slaves go free, did that end slavery? No? Then what is your point?

Ergo, slavery did exist in America in the 1600s -- British North America.

My point is that the United States of America as a government was in no way responsible for the instigation of the institution of slavery. And only became responsible after the ratification of the constitution. And then showed the smallest history of slavery in history, about 75 years. This is a point I made explicitly clear in my original post and you evaded.

The point is that the existence of slavery prior to Jefferson's time does not make Jefferson exempt from moral judgment, any more than prior centuries of witch burning made the judges of Salem, Mass. morally exempt.

First, I wouldn't put Jefferson anywhere near a comparison with Salem judges. Second I still maintain that whatever his flaws, his acheivements far outweigh them.

PS. I will not be replying further to this thread, so harp away if you wish, I've said my piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Thomas Jefferson the Emancipator was fighting none other than Thomas Jefferson the Slave Owner.  In the end, Jefferson the Slave Owner won.  At his death, Jefferson’s human property remained unfreed.

Jefferson the emanciapator won. The Declaration of Independence, an expression of individual rights, resulted in the freeing of the slaves. This is a fact.

I suppose that’s the reason why he whipped runaways.  He didn’t want them to end up in one of those awful Yankee free states.
I don't know this to be true. Nor do I believe you have used an objective source. You have presented as biased an argument as is possible.

In truth, Jefferson was a spendthrift whose lavish lifestyle wildly exceeded his means.  He didn’t free his slaves for the simple reason that he refused to give up his books and fine wines.

This is supposition, not fact. Why are you presenting supposition as if it's fact?

On the contrary, I’m using Jefferson’s own words against him.
Which words are those? I've seen direct quotes from Jefferson where he was sickened seeing another slave owner beating his slaves.

He said he regarded slavery as evil, yet did nothing to end it at his own doorstep.

He fought against it his whole life. Ending it at the signing of the DOI would have ended it at his door step and across the entire country. So he clearly did a great deal.

I note that you have the essence of Jefferson down pat... He was a spend thrift, who beat his slaves, and was a hypocrite. This according to you is the essence of the man. What have you been reading, post modernist revisionist "history"?

You, quite simply, have no idea who the man was. I've read enough of his writings to know that you are so far off the mark it isn't funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not burn down the whole man for his flaws, not of a man of such acheivements as Jefferson.

I'm not burning the whole man, just the part of him that was a hypocrite.

It is generally conceded that Jefferson was above par in being humane to his slaves (as far as that is possible, I mean, they are slaves). You say, oh but he had them whipped. Well, that is what you do with slaves. You are using our present sentiments to judge him when this was not in any way abnormal back then. The whole thing is based on force. What are you going to do, bribe them? That is employment. Ask them nicely?

Because slavery is inherently inhuman, the only way a slave-holder can treat his human property well is by releasing them from bondage. George Washington treated his slaves well; Jefferson did not.

This is the only affirmative attribute you can ascribe to Jefferson? Hypocrite? Washington let his slaves go free, did that end slavery? No? Then what is your point?

Simply this: for all his high minded talk about the evil of slavery, Jefferson granted freedom to only a handful of the hundreds of men. women and children he owned. On the other hand, slavery did end for those on Washington's Mount Vernon plantation.

My point is that the United States of America as a government was in no way responsible for the instigation of the institution of slavery. And only became responsible after the ratification of the constitution. And then showed the smallest history of slavery in history, about 75 years. This is a point I made explicitly clear in my original post and you evaded.

I didn't evade it. Nor do I take issue with it. I was responding specifically to the claim that Jefferson treated his human property well.

Jefferson the emanciapator won.  The Declaration of Independence, an expression of individual rights, resulted in the freeing of the slaves. This is a fact.

Great. Someone should have gotten the word out to the people in bondage at Monticello.

I don't know this to be true.  Nor do I believe you have used an objective source.  You have presented as biased an argument as is possible.

This is supposition, not fact.  Why are you presenting supposition as if it's fact?

Which words are those?  I've seen direct quotes from Jefferson where he was sickened seeing another slave owner beating his slaves.

Paul Finkelman and Conor Cruise O’Brien have both cited Jefferson’s own words in his letters and journals on the necessity of whipping runaways. You are, of course, free to imagine something entirely different, including the idea that Jefferson let his chattel go free.

I note that you have the essence of Jefferson down pat... He was a spend thrift, who beat his slaves, and was a hypocrite.  This according to you is the essence of the man. What have you been reading, post modernist revisionist "history"?

This is a strawman argument. I have made no statements about the “essence” of Jefferson.

You, quite simply, have no idea who the man was.  I've read enough of his writings to know that you are so far off the mark it isn't funny.

I would suggest that you add Notes on the State of Virginia and Jefferson’s letters to your reading list. In Notes, Jefferson states his belief that manumitted slaves could not survive in the United States. "Deep rooted prejudices entertained by 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" made freedom within Virginia impossible. Jefferson also feared a "mixture of colour here." Instead, Jefferson favored “extirpation”: "If a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another." Jefferson supported colonization even though he knew that the cost of transporting so many people to Africa made it "impossible to look at the enterprise a second time." However, "expatriation to the governments of the W[esr] I[ndies] of their own colour" was "entirely practicable and greatly preferable to the mixture of colour here." In any case, Jefferson himself never took advantage of this option. As Paul Finkelman points out, “Jefferson could have freed any of his slaves by sending them out of the state, or he could have freed the slaves he took to Europe and the North. Moreover, Jefferson’s correspondence shows that while in France he advised other Americans there how to retain their slaves in violation of French law. He wrote, no doubt from personal experience, of ‘an instance where a person bringing in a slave, and saying nothing about it, has not been disturbed in his possession.’" (Letter to Paul Bentalou, Aug. 25, 1786.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...