Thomas Jefferson

[fuji]

I disagree since you are taking his quote out of context because Jefferson (& the OP) is speaking of 'more freedom & individual enterprise through less government/taxes' and not about civil rights or slavery.

His support for slavery undermines his credibility on any issue relating ot any kind of liberty. He says that people should be paid for their labour: Did he pay his slaves for their labour? The man is a reprehensible slaver and a thoroughgoing hypocrit.

You are tainting wise words (or conservative rhetoric) with an anachronism that was acceptable in his times.

Wise words ought to be able to stand on their own; Jefferson, a slaver, should be repudiated and spoken of no more, except perhaps in arcane historical discussions. He has no place in the modern world.

It's like saying that you can't accept the speeches of John F. Kennedy on arms reduction and world peace because he cheated on his wife.

Nope, because those are unrelated topics, unlike the topic of this thread versus Jefferson's own conduct.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Again, I challenge that it was legally OK. I do not think the US Constitution, nor any law flowing from it, ever had the power to make slavery legally OK. It was and is a crime against humanity for which the perpetrators, Jefferson among them, have most unfortunately gone unpunished.

I would agree with you Fuji, although I'm not up on my American Constitution and amendments thereto.

If I may quote JFK again, he cited the Constitution when denouncing the civil unrest and discrimination against 'the negro'. Wasn't the basic tenet of equality amongst men written in that document when it was 1st drafted?

 

[GPIDEAL]

His support for slavery undermines his credibility on any issue relating ot any kind of liberty. He says that people should be paid for their labour: Did he pay his slaves for their labour? The man is a reprehensible slaver and a thoroughgoing hypocrit.



Wise words ought to be able to stand on their own; Jefferson, a slaver, should be repudiated and spoken of no more, except perhaps in arcane historical discussions. He has no place in the modern world.



Nope, because those are unrelated topics, unlike the topic of this thread versus Jefferson's own conduct.

So JFK's own conduct can be dismissed but Jefferson's personal conduct can't?

I think you're linking unrelated topics too just to refute or undermine a conservative principle or policy (one that is sound even on the basis of economic theory).

At the time, slaves were not regarded as free men, even though it was wrong, so his quote shouldn't be dismissed outright. So tell me then, what if there were never any slaves? Do you then agree with Jefferson's statement?

 

[Aardvark154]

Again, I challenge that it was legally OK. I do not think the US Constitution, nor any law flowing from it, ever had the power to make slavery legally OK. It was and is a crime against humanity for which the perpetrators, Jefferson among them, have most unfortunately gone unpunished.

You really do get mixed up about this stuff don't you.

I've already mentioned this all once before. You are using a modern concept (Crimes against Humanity) which did not exist at the time. Now although this is civil think of ex post facto.
The argument you are attempting to make is poor* both in terms of the historian’s craft as well as legally.

If you rather would like to say that you find the institution to have been morally repugnant I'd agree with you. But take this anachronistic, inappropriate and confusing insistence upon using the term “Crimes against Humanity” and dump it by the side of the road, for purposes of this discussion.

And as to your arguement that "moral law" trumps National Constiution or national law or treaty. You should know how nonsensical that is as anything other than a philosphy classroom discussion (good luck with that sort of argument in court as to why you don't have to pay your income tax).


* e.g. nonsensical

 

[fuji]

ex post facto[/I].

Wrong. In fact the concept of crime against humanity was developed exactly by those who sought the abolition of slavery, and contemporaneously with Jefferson.

Even if that weren't true, though, it's still correct to apply modern ethics to historic figures when those historic figures are being cited in modern debates. Post #1 in this thread was not meant as an arcane dusty historic exploration of the life of Jefferson. It was meant to inform modern, contemporary issues, and in that context the appropriate standards to apply are modern ethical standards.

You MIGHT be able to persuade me to withhold the use of modern concepts in a historical discussion of Jefferson but you sure as hell won't succeed with that line in the context of a debate about modern political issues, such as post #1 on this thread.

 

[Aardvark154]

You MIGHT be able to persuade me to withhold the use of modern concepts in a historical discussion of Jefferson but you sure as hell won't succeed with that line in the context of a debate about modern political issues, such as post #1 on this thread.

So:

"A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson

rises or falls based on the personal morality of Thomas Jefferson?!

Not to mention bad law and historical methodology.

This is turning into something from [Alice] Through the Looking Glass.


* The first use of the term "Crimes Against Humanity" as a legal doctrine using that wording, which I can find is The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal issued August 8, 1945,

 

[fuji]

rises or falls based on the personal morality of Thomas Jefferson?!

No, but citing Jefferson doesn't do anything to bolster the concept, as he's discredited. You need to argue for it on its own merits, independent of Jefferson.

The first use of the term "Crimes Against Humanity" as a legal doctrine using that wording, which I can find is The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal issued August 8, 1945,

Try here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I8ETAAAAYAAJ&pg=P74#PPT24,M1

The actual phrase "crime against humanity" was not coined until later, but the concept predates the phrase and was developed in the efforts to abolish slavery. In fact you could see the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Jefferson no less, as a document that makes a good case for the limits of the power in government in the face of universal human rights.

 

[Aardvark154]

The actual phrase "crime against humanity" was not coined until later.

I rest.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Personally, I don't see the connection with Jefferson's statement and slavery per se, but even if we do link the two, then it just means that Jefferson is guilty of not living by his own words.

Does that render his statement as invalid? So if the U.S. or its citizens not conduct themselves by the Constitution, does that render it invalid?

 

[fuji]

Now although this is civil think of ex post facto

I think in writing this you failed to understand my viewpoint:

It is not the case that some time in the last few hundred years we passed a law making it illegal to commit crimes against humanity. We may have codified something like that, but when we did we codified something we understood related to universal, perpetual, unalienable human rights that had always existed. Our codification of the concept may have gone some way to clarify it, but the concept itself is superior to any codification in law, superior to any constitution, superior to any written law.

In fact the concept is sufficient to justify the overthrow of states. I think in many ways the concept goes right back to the beginning of time--I think, for example, the Mandate of Heaven, in its way, is a 4000 year old expression of the same concept. Jefferson himself invoked the concept in his quest to justify the American Revolution, by asserting that the sovereign had essentially committed offenses against fundamental, universal human rights.

It has long been held that certain offenses to human dignity have "been considered, by just and enlightened men of all ages, as repugnant to the principles of humanity and universal morality" -- that's the specific phrase used by the Treaty of Paris in their efforts, contemporary with Jefferson, to abolish the slave trade.

I am not indicting Jefferson of violating a law enacted after his death--I am indicting him of having violated fundamental human rights which are universal and which have existed since the dawn of time.

 

[fuji]

I rest.

You lose. If your notion is that the concept of "crime against humanity" did not exist just because the phrase did not exist then you are an absolute fool.

 

[fuji]

Does that render his statement as invalid?

Nope, but it means the statement has to be supported on its own merits, by separate arguments: Citing Jefferson does nothing to support the statement, and in fact detracts from it.

It would therefore be better to bring the concept up and argue it without ANY reference to Jefferson.

 

[Aardvark154]

You lose. If your notion is that the concept of "crime against humanity" did not exist just because the phrase did not exist then you are an absolute fool.

Your Honor/My Lord we charged the defendant with XYZ even though that charge is not in the statues because that must be what the legislature really meant to say when they enacted that section of statute. Yes, Your Honor/My Lord, we agree that it does not say that at all, but. . . .

Terms of Art have specific meanings.

 

[Aardvark154]

I am not indicting Jefferson of violating a law enacted after his death--I am indicting him of having violated fundamental human rights which are universal and which have existed since the dawn of time.

Then say what you wrote which I quote above and stop dragging in "Crimes Against Humanity."

 

[fuji]

Then say what you wrote which I quote above and stop dragging in "Crimes Against Humanity."

Crimes against humanity are one and the same thing as systemic violations of fundamental human rights. Your notion that crimes against humanity did not exist until we coined the phrase is absurd to put it mildly.

 

[fuji]

Your Honor/My Lord we charged the defendant with XYZ even though that charge is not in the statues

What have statues to do with crimes against humanity? You fail at understanding this point: Crimes against humanity are offenses against fundamental human rights, offenses so grave and so odious that they amount to an affront to human dignity.

The rights in question pre-existed the United States, pre-existed the United Kingdom, pre-existed the Roman Empire. They are universal and perpetual, there is no such thing as an act that occurred prior to the existence of these rights: These rights are as old as human civilization, perhaps older.

In 1046 BC the Zhou invoked a concept to unseat the Shang that was in many ways repeated in 1776 AD when the American colonies invoked virtually the same concept to unseat King George in the New World. The concept is that there are universal principles of justice which are superior to any law, to any constitution, to any sovereign, and when invoked have the power to upend government and entire systems of rule of law.

These concepts of justice are inherent to the human condition and superior to any system of government, let alone to any mere statue or, system of courts or particular rules of law. They are in fact the ultimate source of any governing authority, and any government which contravenes these principles loses not only its legitimacy, but puts itself in peril of criminal conviction.

In more modern times we've codified these notions into the concept of crimes against humanity: Crimes so severe that they exist outside the laws of any nation. Leaders of nations can and have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity that had not even been formally codified when they committed the acts they were found guilty of, by courts that were instituted only after their arrest.

In the face of all of this to say you can get Jefferson off on a technicality by saying that the phrase "crime against humanity" hadn't been coined at the time he committed his crimes against humanity is the height of absurdity. The concept has been ever present throughout human history and recognized, repeatedly, by good and just people throughout all ages.

 

[oldjones]

Of course the argument can not only equally be made for lower tax rates stimulating the economy and hence providing greater tax revenue for the government, but also that liberals big and small L, make a fetish that bigger government and hence higher taxes are always better.

Sometime would you please quote me a liberal saying bigger government's always better.

 

[Aardvark154]

Sometime would you please quote me a liberal saying bigger government's always better.

Actions speak at least as loud as words.

Please tell me the Democratic or Liberal or NDP leader in the U.S. or Canada in the past half-century who in economic good times has reduced the size of Government.

 

[Aardvark154]

Fuji, you stubbornly insist on using a legal term with specific meaning developed post 1944 to mean other things.

It has been pointed out to you several times that there are perfectly good terms you can use which clearly and without confusion convey what you are attempting to say.

This is as bad as my deciding to use the terms Civil Engineer to mean anyone with an Engineering Degree who is polite, or Mechanical Engineer to mean anyone with an Engineering Degree who is good at repairing automobiles. This to put it mildly would be confusing particularly if other people reasonably presumed that the terms where being used in accordance with the standard meanings thereof.

 

[Aardvark154]

Leaders of nations can and have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity that had not even been formally codified when they committed the acts they were found guilty of, by courts that were instituted only after their arrest.

There are any number of legal and government scholars who have been quite forceful in arguing what grave mistakes such actions have been with a plethora of unintended consequences.
This is not a realm of universal agreement as to how wise this has been.

It really in many has been a case of having opened Pandora’s Box, not that I expect you to either see or agree that this has been so.