Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thomas Jefferson

Rate this topic


Marc K.

Recommended Posts

First of all Jefferson was a slave himself, as were all colonialists to the King, the only diffence was one of degree. We are slaves today because we pay taxes. And the industrialists have it worse than us.

I doubt, although I don't know for sure, but the best and most intelligent slave was no where near to the intelligence of Jefferson. I am so glad that Jefferson was born white! And most of his slaves were probably no where near as intelligent as his friends. In a culture where the history of man recognizes the phenomenon of slaves, forget about them being black, it is unfair to ask Jefferson to sacrifice his life, which was America, to be "stubborn" about the slave question. I'm sure Jefferson observed that it seemed that blacks were a different and inferior species: that was his observation.

Who was the first black genius in America?

Jefferson was a genius.

How could you ever fu#4'n forget that without the Declaration of Independence, blacks would never be free. Yes, yes, Europe abolished slavery before America. But without America's fight, the Europeans would have never FREED THEMSELVES!

Come on--if you live in America--please show respect to the man responsible for making possible you current freedom. Without Jefferson Canada would have never had the courage 100 years later, to ASK for their self-government. It was not until 1982, when Canada became it's own country. Unfortunately, Canada is still a constitutional dictatorship.

Take care,

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just fyi I grew up in Canada and for all practical purposes the US is not any freer a country than Canada. Maybe on paper Americans have more rights than Canadians, but not in practice. That was rather a shock to me when I moved here.

And Canada's becoming self-governing was more of a formailty than anything else; they had been making their decisions themselves since 1867. The head of state is still the Queen, but she has no actual power over the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Segration laws:

In a free society, If I own some property, I have the absolute right to ban any man for what ever reason from my property. If I don't like THE HAT he is wearing then he will be booted off my property. I will put a sign out of courtesy, of course.

Yes, it would be absurd to ban a competent black man from my property because he could be a valuable trade partner. But I have a right to be as bigoted as I want to be.

The segregation laws were about public property but there shouldn't be public property. The profit motive will end slavery when the demand market has shown the value of slaves, hispanics, AND BUSINESS MEN.

Jefferson may have supported segregation laws but so do I. Property rights is inalienable.

Let's say a founding father wanted to INTEGRATE blacks into society. If they are of no profitable use then what do I owe them, if I did not make them slaves? I probably inherited them.

Maybe keeping them is wrong but what do I do with them then? I'll free them. What will happen to them if I do? That is not the justification for slavery. But it is the practical reality that liberty-minded liberators had to deal with.

The attacks on Jefferson are unfair. For those who attack Jefferson I would like to know what your understanding is of the issue of: Errors of Knowledge versus breaches of morality. Tell me, please.

Take care,

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godless Capitalist:

Have you read our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The only way that Canada can avoid a dicatorship is through constitutional reform. That's true, right?

So America is the only country in the world, that has a constitution that BY PAPER protects individual rights.

Local government has much to do with the freedom of Canadians. However, since we want to fund every social program possible, we take away from the protectors of individual rights, and there are not enough cops on the streets.

Same in American, eh? Of course, because they are running away from the practice of the founding fathers.

No?

Take care,

Jose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is precisely morally where Jefferson was extremely wrong and immoral in not freeing his slaves.

Were Jefferson's slaves allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted and work on whatever they wanted without any restrictions? If yes, then Jefferson had implicitly freed his slaves.

But they were NOT allowed this.

For your own sake, I would advise that you re-read your post and note the cynical tone. You are more intent on making Jefferson look evil than you are on learning the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jefferson, as were the other Founding Fathers, were men of principles, products of the enlightenment of the 18th century. Men who eschewed medievil religious fanaticism, who sought to seperate religion and state, and they are being compared to the likes of evil men like Lenin, Stalin, and other dictators? Absurd and ridiculous! They fashioned a document and an idea of limited government which was to be subservient to the people, an enlightened Bill of Rights, and promoted the correct idea of the soveirgnty of the individual. Those who denigrate Jefferson and his achievements, along with those of any of the Founding Fathers are not lovers of liberty, nor are they true Americans. Revisionism, aided by the forces of big Lincolnesque government, government indoctrination centers (public schools) have spun history to the point were the Founding Fathers have been denigrated and pilloried. No wonder our society or government no longer has any respect for our BoR, private property, small minarchist government, or individual achievement and initiative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that Jefferson was racist -- at least to the extent that has been implied here.

Many of his observations about negro slaves in his Notes on Virginia, were entirely reasonable observations based on the available evidence. Jefferson even qualifies his observations with acknowledgement about the dangers of overgeneralization (my term here -- I haven't time to quote the original), and announces his final conclusions with regret, becasue he is worried that Negroes (alleged) deficiencies in some areas would weaken the case against granting them full human rights.

Later in his life, Jefferson writes to a European aquaintance who has sent him writings from a European black astronomer (don't remember the name... again, I dont' have the source right in front of me) that he is happy to learn that the qualities he attributed to negroes were a matter of their circumstances in America rather than intrinsic qualities of their "race" (my scare quotes -- I don't believe the concept "race" is valid).

To me, this sounds like a method of evaluation antithetical to racism (or, as close as any had come at that time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt, although I don't know for sure, but the best and most intelligent slave was no where near to the intelligence of Jefferson.  I am so glad that Jefferson was born white!  And most of his slaves were probably no where near as intelligent as his friends.  In a culture where the history of man recognizes the phenomenon of slaves, forget about them being black, it is unfair to ask Jefferson to sacrifice his life, which was America, to be "stubborn" about the slave question.  I'm sure Jefferson observed that it seemed that blacks were a different and inferior species: that was his observation. 

Who was the first black genius in America?

Jefferson was a genius.

You might want to read the story of Benjamin Banneker, which doesn't make Jefferson look too good.

Altogether though, I think Jefferson's strengths far, far outweighed his flaws. But, I'm probably more a fan of (John) Adams than of Jefferson anyway.

It is interesting to note that Jefferson considered blacks mentally and physically inferior. Today, the latter part of his judgment is widely regarded as erroneous but the former still has some "validity" in many minds. The historical joke will be on those who do not realize that the former, too, is invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godless Capitalist:

Have you read our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The only way that Canada can avoid a dicatorship is through constitutional reform.  That's true, right?

So America is the only country in the world, that has a constitution that BY PAPER protects individual rights.

Local government has much to do with the freedom of Canadians.  However, since we want to fund every social program possible, we take away from the protectors of individual rights, and there are not enough cops on the streets.

Same in American, eh? Of course, because they are running away from the practice of the founding fathers.

No?

Take care,

Jose.

You are in Canada? Yes I've read the Charter. Yes on paper the US protects individual rights and other countries do not (or at least not as absolutes). The problem is that the US courts do not actually follow the Constitution. A dictatorship is just as possible here as in Canada.

Anyway, I am not really sure what you are getting at ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to this, I was told in my U.S. History class that laws against freeing slaves were, in fact, put in effect as a measure of protection for slaves.  Contrary to popular impression, slaveowners had some degree of responsiblity for the welfare of their slaves.  These laws prevented a slaveowner from "freeing" slaves who had become undesireable due to old age, bad health, or injury and thus absolving himself of any responsibility for their welfare.

I'm a little late but....

This is a good point, I taught an Afro-American studies class in high school, and a point a lot of kids didn't agree with (though it was true) was that a lot of slaves DID NOT WANT TO LEAVE their masters. Andrew Johnson handled reconstruction poorly, in that it heightened tensions between races. In the 1860s Gen. NB Forrest creates the Klan and the Freedmen are afraid of what they might find off the plantation. So many stayed.

Lincoln knew that reconstruction would cause so much tension that he actually held negotiations w/a S. American diplomat to create a state in S. America for freed slaves.

Although I don't like the fact that he owned slaves, in Jefferson's defense..He had to edit the slave clause he, Franklin(the abolitionist), and Adams put in the D of I to get the vote past Rutledge and S. Carolina (1776 Slaaaaves, Molasses, and Rummm...). Also the contitutional convention (Jefferson was not present, he was in france) took slavery as a serious issue, and banned the trans-atlantic slave trade beginning in 1801. Although he may have had some biggoted sentiments, he didn't take the issue lightly.

I do have a question though...

Would having a slave to protect him from other more brutal slave owners be pragmatism? An obvious principle is being violated...or is it? Are all rights equal, or should some superceed others (in this case life superceeds freedom)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tommy also in his view that Jefferson can be blamed for his actions. I don't like the idea that slavery was a vice of the times, not of the man. There were people who opposed slavery and were not racist during Jefferson's time. Abolition was a debate during Jefferson's lifetime. I also find it hard to believe that one could live in close proximity to slaves and be incapable of identifying them as humans.

I admire Jefferson very much, but I think it is completely proper to be able to admire someone yet condemn some of his actions. The thing is, slavery really isn't an important part of the reasons we admire Jefferson. It is a contradiction in his ethics, but as with Aristotle, the mistakes don't invalidate the achievements. I definitely don't think that it is worth the time educators spend on teaching kids about Jefferson owning slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at Jefferson the same way I look at Ayn Rand; I acknowledge that their greatness, but I also acknowledge that they were humans who made mistakes. Diefying Ayn Rand would be a contradiction of Objectivism. Jefferson wasn't perfect, but there was so many great things about that wonderful man that they overshadow any shortcomings he had.

the problem that arises and makes people reluctant to accept that is the fact that other people tend to use a person's shortcomings in an Ad Hominem attack in an effort to discredit a philosophy they couldn't discredit any other way.

oh by the way, I'm pretty sure that Jefferson was bound by his state's law that he couldn't arbitrarily release slaves. He found a loophole in his laws that if he didn't name a successor to his slaves, they became freemen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Many (but not all) of those discussing this topic appear to have spent insufficient time studying the FACTS about Thomas Jefferson. At the very least, get "The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson" in Random House's Modern Library series (edited by Adrienne Koch and William Peden), and READ Jefferson's own words. If you're close to a large library, try looking through the many volumes of Jefferson's letters, as well.

I believe it's in Jefferson's Autobiography that he states that his FIRST act in public life, his FIRST week in the House of Burgesses, was to persuade a more senior member to introduce a bill, allowing masters to free their slaves. According to Jefferson, that provoked such a storm of criticism that the senior member almost lost his seat in the legislature.

Also, in that same work, read Jefferson's ORIGINAL draft of the Declaration of Independence, in which he condemns the slave trade as "cruel warfare against human nature."

SEARCH through Jefferson's writings, including his letters. There are many surprises. At least one surprise is a nasty one. There exists a passage in which Jefferson says he believes that the apparent inferiority of black people is not due merely to their status as slaves, but to inherent inferiority. HOWEVER, there are many more PLEASANT surprises in his writings, as well. In particular, there is a later passage in which he reconsiders the same issue, and states a diametrically opposite conclusion, saying there is NO proof that black people are inferior. He goes on to say (I'm paraphrasing, I don't have this in front of me): even if it were true they were inferior in intelligence (which, he insists, he does NOT admit), that would in no way imply that they were in any way inferior in rights--after all, Isaac Newton was more intelligent than others but that didn't give him any extra rights!

Unfortunately I cannot provide an exact source of that quote. I believe it was in one of Jefferson's letters, as quoted in a book from about 10 years ago vindicating the Founding Fathers. The book was sold, at the time, by Second Renaissance Books. (Sorry I can't be more precise than that, at the moment. I will try to find the book in their old catalogs.) The book offered many interesting details about exactly when various states banned slavery, and which states during which years allowed black people to vote.

George Washington, as you should know, was a man whose library contained more works on hunting and farming than philosophy; he was not as intellectually inclined as, say, Thomas Jefferson. Yet I have read an account saying that even Washington FIRST ATTEMPTED TO FREE HIS SLAVES IN 1770--fully 6 years before the Declaration of Independence! (Again, I do not have an exact source for this. I read it several years ago in "Cricket," the children's magazine.)

I dearly wish that Jefferson had been a fiery, crusading abolitionist, taking a public stand at every opportunity to denounce slavery, in spite of the harm such an unpopular stand would have done him politically and economically. He was not. But neither was he the hypocrite that some moral pygmies in academia and the media have slandered him as. WHO, in the 1700s, did MORE than he to lay the foundation for the eventual abolition of slavery?

* * *

On this same general subject, here's an article I hope you have read:

"The Anti-Jeffersonian Revolution: Academic Irrationalism and the Sally Hemings Controversy," by J. Patrick Mullins ( The Intellectual Activist, July 2002)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I cannot provide an exact source of that quote.  I believe it was in one of Jefferson's letters, as quoted in a book from about 10 years ago vindicating the Founding Fathers.  The book was sold, at the time, by Second Renaissance Books.

Here is the book I referred to: “Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America,” by Thomas G. West (Rowman & Littlefield, 1997). It’s still in print; many new and used copies are available at Amazon, at AddAll.com/Used, etc. I’ve just ordered a copy.

And here’s a list of relevant passages I found, in “The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson”:

p. xxiii in 1783, at the Confederation Congress, Jefferson attempted to have slavery excluded from the Northwestern Territory

p. xliii Jefferson’s unwillingness to overwork his slaves was a drain on his pocketbook

p. 5 (Autobiography) in 1769, Jefferson’s first act in the House of Burgesses was an unsuccessful bill allowing owners to free their slaves (also p. xviii and pp. 641-642, letter to Edward Coles, Aug. 25, 1814)

Pp. 21, 25 (Autobiography) passage in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, denouncing slavery as “cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty”

p. 40 (Autobiography) in 1778 Jefferson got a bill passed banning the importation of slaves into Virginia

p. 51 (Autogiography) when the laws of Virginia were revised, Jefferson hoped that a call for gradual emancipation would be included; however, there was too much opposition. Jefferson also expresses the opinion that the two races would not be able to live together under the same government, and favored transportation to Africa

p. 255 (Notes on Virginia, Query XIV) more details on the proposed emancipation

pp. 258-262 (Notes on Virginia, Query XIV) Jefferson compares the situation of black slaves with that of slaves in ancient Rome; and considers whether black people are inferior by nature. In one sentence he thinks it’s pretty much proved; however, in three later sentences he says that opinion is a "conjecture," must be “hazarded with great diffidence,” and ends by saying it’s “a suspicion only.”

p. 278 (Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII) Jefferson observes that slavery seriously degrades the moral character of the slave-owners

p. 304 (A Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1774) Jefferson attacks the king of England for hampering efforts to outlaw the slave trade; he says "the rights of human nature" are "deeply wounded by this infamous practice."

pp. 313-314 (Report of Government for the Western Territory, 1784) Jefferson proposes that “there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states”

These are the results of only a quick check; there may be other passages I've missed. I wish I had a good, thorough biography of Jefferson at hand (or a nearby library with his complete works), but I don't. Hopefully some of you will be INSPIRED to carry on the search!

* * *

Quoting "A is A"

"Hello Bill. I agree with you. Please see my post in this thread. It is post number 5."

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
In particular, there is a later passage ... 

Here’s the Jefferson quote I was referring to (Vindicating the Founders , p. 9):

"Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves ... but whatever may be the degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others."

(letter to Gregoire, February 25, 1809; the reference is given in footnote 20)

This book containes other anti-slavery quotes by a number of the Founding Fathers: James Otis, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison. Also an abolitionist, though for some reason not quoted in this book, was Thomas Paine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
... the contitutional convention (Jefferson was not present, he was in france) took slavery as a serious issue, and banned the trans-atlantic slave trade beginning in 1801.

Thanks for the info. This was when Jefferson was president.

It is clear from this thread that regardless of any doubts that Jefferson might have about whether negros had capacities equal to white men, this did not prevent him from seeing that they deserved equality under law.

To this end, he did more than just the bare minimum that was politically acceptable. Instead, he "pushed the envelope" considerably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. This was when Jefferson was president.

It is clear from this thread that regardless of any doubts that Jefferson might have about whether negros had capacities equal to white men, this did not prevent him from seeing that they deserved equality under law.

To this end, he did more than just the bare minimum that was politically acceptable. Instead, he "pushed the envelope" considerably.

Interesting you came to this thread also, I was reading it also after I posted in the hero thread (which I'm glad I did b/c it seems to have spawned off-shoot conversations though not neccessarily about heroes as I had intended) where I brought up precisely this issue, more to say that every hero can be tarnished if one looks hard enough, which I don't know how to take, but none the less, I hold Thomas Jefferson as the most fundamental one I have, and despite the controversy surrounding him, I feel that he was ultimately a hero, because of what good he made possible. I feel the same for Ayn Rand I think, she has made alot of good possible again, and isn't that really what makes a hero?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coincidentally, I am reading about the Founding Fathers. There is something interesting about Jefferson related to this topic: he believed that all the revolutionary French could sustain in their rebellion was a Constitutional Monarachy. There is a difference between the American (Virginian) farmer and the European farmer. There is something important about being divided by an Ocean. There is something important about being descendants of an English Constitutional Monarchy.

I don't know how much I will post on this subject because I am in the middle of a GRAND investigation.

However, I will, because I am looking through some books, post some relevant quotes, where each man can judge for himself.

A clue when a certain mind gets far enough: could a free Negro support the products of a farm? Jefferson or Washington is not to blame for the essential psycho-epistemology of the Negro Slave.

A call all of you to take a closer look at the new science of Psycho-Epistemology because it has a philosophical nature--and thus, a BIOLOGICAL nature.

All the best,

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A clue when a certain mind gets far enough:  could a free Negro support the products of a farm?  Jefferson or Washington is not to blame for the essential psycho-epistemology of the Negro Slave.

A call all of you to take a closer look at the new science of Psycho-Epistemology because it has a philosophical nature--and thus, a BIOLOGICAL nature.

Could you kindly explain what you mean by the preceding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you kindly explain what you mean by the preceding?

It is all based on the idea that The American Revolution was the beginning and not the end and ultimate realization of freedom. Just like in France who had a long history of despotism entrenched in the culture, it was not possible that the revolution could establish a level of freedom like that that the United States achieved. Freedom is a responsibility.

In America, the revolution was financed and fought by farmers. Slavery was part of this past that Colonialists inherited. The fact remains that slaves is something that white people had to accept and deal with. There seems to be two options: free the slave or integrate him into the productive process. The former is clearly not in the best interest of the slave at that time; and even if it was, how would they cope--would the slave deserve a sort of welfare check without work? Or you can keep them working, and try to treat them as best as possible. But just like the American Indians, the slaves were intellectually savage. There is an obvious diference between a farmer like Washington's intellect and that of a slave. This is not by nature but by culture.

The white man is not responsible for the intellectual state of the slave. (I would though have to take a closer look at the actual life of the working slave at that time). The difference is evident in intellect and morality: I doubt whether a slave like Washington or Jefferson would have let themselves be captured; they would have committed suicide instead of being dragged across the ocean to breathe a life that is not life. This is where "psycho-epistemology" comes in.

That's it.

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In America, the revolution was financed and fought by farmers.  Slavery was part of this past that Colonialists inherited.  The fact remains that slaves is something that white people had to accept and deal with.  There seems to be two options:  free the slave or integrate him into the productive process.  The former is clearly not in the best interest of the slave at that time; and even if it was, how would they cope--would the slave deserve a sort of welfare check without work?  Or you can keep them working, and try to treat them as best as possible. 

So, by this reasoning, why should we have (had) an anti-slavery movement at all? Why not just continue with the whipping and toiling? Why bother to spread individualism? Why praise America, the land of individual rights? On your premise, why study Objectivism at all?

To boot, you have the gall to ask "would the slave deserve a sort of welfare check without work?" i.e., does a man deprived of his rights deserve any part of the reward of his toil?

And you say you're a student of Objectivism?

But just like the American Indians, the slaves were intellectually savage.  There is an obvious diference between a farmer like Washington's intellect and that of a slave.  This is not by nature but by culture.

Even if the slaves were intellectually savage, does that justify slavery?

The white man is not responsible for the intellectual state of the slave.  (I would though have to take a closer look at the actual life of the working slave at that time).  The difference is evident in intellect and morality:  I doubt whether a slave like Washington or Jefferson would have let themselves be captured; they would have committed suicide instead of being dragged across the ocean to breathe a life that is not life.  This is where "psycho-epistemology" comes in.

Why bring physiology into the issue? What difference does it make whether the slave or master is white or black? Blacks have enslaved both blacks and whites in history, just as whites have enslaved both blacks and whites, so this attempt to make the issue of slave and master a "black-man-white-man" thing won't fly. It is only the ignorant people who never read history who propagate these lies.

And are you saying all the people who are slaves are those who are stupid enough to be captured? Ok, what about Ben-Hur, to use a fictional example? or Maximus in Gladiator? Or Spartacus?

And what about the real-life examples of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington, who are just two examples of many former slaves who made good? Have you even bothered to read anything written by former slaves? Do you know that a leading Stoic philosopher was a slave? Or do you think you can "figure it out" all by yourself?

And psycho-epistemology cannot be used to justify your odious claims. By your standard, why bother trying to change our mindsets? Why not allow the culture to remain as it is? After all, psycho-epistemology has rendered us incapable of change hasn't it? After all, a person's pre-existing psychology is impervious to change, right?

And following from this, why free a slave if his thinking is already conditioned by his intellectual savagery? After all, the education or re-education of a slave is impossible, since psycho-epistemology has already had its say.

This view of yours is inane, to say the very least. And it is in direct conflict with all that individualism entails. So, please say you like to spend time on this board because no-one anywhere else will humor you; but please do not call yourself a student of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, by this reasoning, why should we have (had) an anti-slavery movement at all?  Why not just continue with the whipping and toiling?  Why bother to spread individualism?  Why praise America, the land of individual rights?  On your premise, why study Objectivism at all?

To boot, you have the gall to ask "would the slave deserve a sort of welfare check without work?"  i.e., does a man deprived of his rights deserve any part of the reward of his toil? 

And you say you're a student of Objectivism?

Even if the slaves were intellectually savage, does that justify slavery? 

Why bring physiology into the issue?  What difference does it make whether the slave or master is white or black?  Blacks have enslaved both blacks and whites in history, just as whites have enslaved both blacks and whites, so this attempt to make the issue of slave and master a "black-man-white-man" thing won't fly.  It is only the ignorant people who never read history who propagate these lies.

And are you saying all the people who are slaves are those who are stupid enough to be captured?  Ok, what about Ben-Hur, to use a fictional example? or Maximus in Gladiator?  Or Spartacus?

And what about the real-life examples of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington, who are just two examples of many former slaves who made good?  Have you even bothered to read anything written by former slaves?  Do you know that a leading Stoic philosopher was a slave?  Or do you think you can "figure it out" all by yourself?

And psycho-epistemology cannot be used to justify your odious claims.  By your standard, why bother trying to change our mindsets?  Why not allow the culture to remain as it is?  After all, psycho-epistemology has rendered us incapable of change hasn't it?  After all, a person's pre-existing psychology is impervious to change, right?

And following from this, why free a slave if his thinking is already conditioned by his intellectual savagery?  After all, the education or re-education of a slave is impossible, since psycho-epistemology has already had its say.

This view of yours is inane, to say the very least.  And it is in direct conflict with all that individualism entails.  So, please say you like to spend time on this board because no-one anywhere else will humor you; but please do not call yourself a student of Objectivism.

Well Zeus, you're the first person on this forum to insult me, Congratuations! I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I will admit that I haven't studied enough history. I said it in a previous post on this topic. I'm trying to figure out whether slavery should have been abolished and sacrifice the union, or it was fine to be tolerated in the light of establishing a system that would eventually wipe out slavery. Like I said, I have stumbled on a grand investigation. This is also why I said I wouldn't say much about it.

I'm actually glad that you chose to insult me, because during my investigation, it will help me learn.

I do abhorre slavery. I would never be a slave owner. And the fact that the fouding fathers owned slaves has always bothered me. Becaues of it I want to call them evil. This is what I'm trying to deal with, and caused my comments.

I still think your are misunderstanding where I am coming from. But at this moment I can't say more.

Not only will I call myself a student of Objectivism, I think I can soon call myself an Objectivist.

I'm only twenty five, and unfortunately I've spent most of my time reading Objectivism and studying how to write fiction. I'm sorry if my historical erudition is not to your satisfaction but I will admit that I am ignorant in many ways and on many subjects.

So is it only this topic that has led you to call me an obnoxious unobjectivist, or are there other posts that have led to this conclusion of yours?

Although, this topic is certainly an ethical one, it is certainly a very specialized application of the Objectivist ethics.

So help me out. What should have occurred during the revolution? Should the slaves have been freed at the beginning. How would that process have looked like? What should the law have done with the slave owners? Certainly by the Objectivist standards a slave owner is the worst specimen of criminal. Should Jefferson have been executed?

When it comes to the Founding Fathers I am interested in twhat ideas and principles led to their actions, good and bad. To be honest, I'm just beginning this process--and I'm loving it.

Here's some more honesty: I haven't even studied logic, so I don't know what my logical fallacies are.

I will certainly say that I am not a racist, I would never be a slave owner, and I certainly know that the color of a man's skin does not determine a man's intelligence or character or moral worth. I myself am a mixture of many races, including Black.

Sincerely,

Americo.

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...