Thomas Jefferson

[fuji]

Count for what? Once again, please explain how this relates to the quote?

I dunno, maybe his slave holding does not sit well with this part of your quote: "shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement"

What do you think? Does that sit well with slavery in your mind?

If you want a Conservative Jeffersonian slant you might look to his admirers at the CATO institute, they used to have this as their slogan: "Since [the American] revolution, civil and economic liberties have been eroded." Used to that is until Clarence Thomas paid them a visit and pointed out to them that it didn't seem that way to black Americans.

 

[fuji]

To answer your question - Tom's quote applies to slaves as property. Slavery was not prohibited by the Constitution at the time, so Jefferson would expect a "good government" to stay away from his slaves. Jefferson's quote became relevant to slaves only after the 13th Amendment changed their status from property to citizen.

That was as disreputable an argument back then as it is now. There is in fact no legal framework that can justify slavery, no fancy footed lawyer talk that can justify the complete suspension of human rights, as it is self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Black Americans were not endowed with freedom by the emancipation proclamation nor by the 13th Amendment: They were always free men. They simply had been victims of a crime against humanity up until that moment. The Constitution of the United States is not a document of sufficient power to revoke or to grant such unalienable human rights.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Okay but Peckrwood never explained why he's focus on slaves only.

Gee, missed this gem by hinny.
Seems hinny and Gagmire do good 'Dumb & Dumber' shtick.

Back to slaves, most folks view them as human beings.

How about you two cons???...

 

[WoodPeckr]

I'm still shocked that danmand has not lectured Pekkkr on his favorite phrases from Jefferson.....

Well bottie, it looks like you blew all your political capital on this thread.
Time for you.....or one of your alternative handles to come up with another inane thread like this one!

LMFAO!!!!!!!........

 

[schne327]

That was as disreputable an argument back then as it is now. There is in fact no legal framework that can justify slavery, no fancy footed lawyer talk that can justify the complete suspension of human rights, as it is self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Black Americans were not endowed with freedom by the emancipation proclamation nor by the 13th Amendment: They were always free men. They simply had been victims of a crime against humanity up until that moment. The Constitution of the United States is not a document of sufficient power to revoke or to grant such unalienable human rights.

Thank you. Your analysis has been very helpful in illuminating how the liberal mind works. You, Pecker, Danmand and the rest of your ilk feel that the founding fathers were nothing better than evil criminals.

Now I understand better why you guys hate America, so much.

 

[oldjones]

I do not support slavery, just stating historical facts to help you liberals understand the debate.

What debate? You keep ducking out behind legal technicalities.

It's like this: There are moral and ethical principles, and there are laws. Good people make laws that reflect their good principles. When the laws don't match the principles they are bad laws and need to be changed. The Founding Fathers believed it was OK to revolt, defy legal authority and kill when they thought the laws didn't live up to principles that benefitted them. Then they fumbled the ball.

They staunchly upheld the laws that deprived their black brethren of similar benefits, bloodily punishing and suppressing any attempt to claim those inalienable rights for anyone w/ a drop of African blood. Which racism naturally progressed to genocide of the original inhabitants of the continent. And you're defending them for it.

Conservatives—real conservatives, who try to hold onto proven values—have much to contribute to society and we need them. But the unprincipled BS that shamming pretenders to the name try to pass off—like that sort of pettifogging crap—smears them all.

There isn't anyone elevated to high status, who doesn't stand on feet of clay. Real progress comes when you stop looking up to them and imagining their received wisdom is all you need ever to know. Progressive liberals, as they were, start by examining principles, and using them afresh, as they did, to make changes for the better.

And they don't stop because some bible told them so.

 

[Aardvark154]

Progressives . . . start by examining principles, and using them afresh, as they did, to make changes for the better.

And they don't stop because some bible told them so.

May I suggest that you look more closely at the motivations of the Abolitionist movement? When you do so, you will see that your last sentence makes utterly no sense whatsoever.

 

[Aardvark154]

Thank you. Your analysis has been very helpful in illuminating how the liberal mind works. You, Pecker, Danmand and the rest of your ilk feel that the founding fathers were nothing better than evil criminals.

Now I understand better why you guys hate America, so much.

Schne, you also need to understand that it is so much easier to see history in black and white rather than in the hundred thousand shades of grey that it is and that the actions of each of us are. One sees this in threads like this all the time.

 

[capncrunch]

Personally, I don't see TJ's owning of slaves to be particularly damning. It was within the law of the land at that time, and even though we currently see it as reprehensible, he was within his rights to own slaves. (Apparently he was bonking at least one of them, too. Look up Sally Hemmings.)

But I do find it disingenuous that Jefferson's thoughts on religion are conveniently ignored by those on the right.

 

[oldjones]

May I suggest that you look more closely at the motivations of the Abolitionist movement? When you do so, you will see that your last sentence makes utterly no sense whatsoever.

I assume you're excusing the Bible (I used the term in l.c., please note) because it inspired the Abolitionists? It also inspired the Confederacy and was carried into church by many a cruel slavemaster on a Sunday.

Whatever good intentions they start with, like GC's OP, 'bad' conservatives stop making things better when their received wisdom—their bible—stops. They tell you they're solving the crime problem, but they stop as soon as they've passed Draconian laws, without paying for them. Ideology=bible.

Clearer?

 

[fuji]

Thank you. Your analysis has been very helpful in illuminating how the liberal mind works. You, Pecker, Danmand and the rest of your ilk feel that the founding fathers were nothing better than evil criminals.

Now I understand better why you guys hate America, so much.

Do you agree with the notion that slavery is a crime against humanity? A simple yes or no will do.

By the way I don't generally consider myself to be either on the left or the right of the political scale. On some issues I hold what you would consider right wing views, and on others what you would consider left wing. I think it's narrow-minded to assert that just because you are against unions, say, means that you also have to be against abortion, or that just because you believe that individuals should have great economic rights also means that you should be against the idea of their having great civil rights.

 

[oldjones]

Personally, I don't see TJ's owning of slaves to be particularly damning. It was within the law of the land at that time, and even though we currently see it as reprehensible, he was within his rights to own slaves. (Apparently he was bonking at least one of them, too. Look up Sally Hemmings.)

But I do find it disingenuous that Jefferson's thoughts on religion are conveniently ignored by those on the right.

So if the law of the land still permitted sex with fourteen year olds that would be "…not particularly damning"? But it would be the day after the law changed? Should we look for a sympathetic post from you next time some pedophile's arrested? Using a position of authority to have sex with someone in your care and under your power is considered sexual assault, and was proscribed then under all sorts of laws—as marijuana use is today—can we trust you noted Jefferson's conduct due to your outrage?

I do find it peculiar that his views on fairytales should get your last word and not the rape.

 

[fuji]

Personally, I don't see TJ's owning of slaves to be particularly damning. It was within the law of the land at that time, and even though we currently see it as reprehensible, he was within his rights to own slaves. (Apparently he was bonking at least one of them, too. Look up Sally Hemmings.)

I disagree that he was within his rights to own slaves. It was and is a crime against humanity. All that changed was that America ceased the abuse of the human rights of its black citizens. It does not mean that it was EVER justifiable. As I said in an earlier post the US Constitution is not a document of sufficient weight to grant or revoke fundamental human freedoms. Nor is the constitution of any country.

When Germany made it constitutionally acceptable to murder Jews that did not make it legally or morally OK for them to do so--their constitution was not a document of sufficient legal weight to revoke Jewish human rights, and similarly the American constitution is not powerful enough to pretend to grant or revoke black ones.

Such rights are unalienable, beyond the grasp of any government to rescind, no matter how constituted.

 

[Aardvark154]

Do you disagree with the notion that slavery is a crime against humanity?

The problem Fuji is do you mean today or over a century ago?

You have on your "selectivity blinders" if you want to apply modern social and legal norms to actions in the past. As I've written before quoting from James Russell Lowell's "The Present Crisis" "New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth."

It is both stupid and hopelessly moralistic to criticize those in the past based upon present day standards.

 

[Aardvark154]

I do find it disingenuous that Jefferson's thoughts on religion are conveniently ignored by those on the right.

Then again I've never been fond of Jefferson finding him both hypocritical and sanctimonious.

 

[fuji]

The problem Fuji is do you mean today or over a century ago?

If you hold those rights to be unalienable does it matter? Note whose words I'm using.

And by the way, there were many people in the world living at the time of Thomas Jefferson who were quite vocal that slavery was an abominable violation of human rights. It wasn't like there was no awareness of the criticism: Jefferson simply found it to be selfishly convenient to own slaves, and I think one can ask how many of his views were an expression of selfish need? To what extent were there "founding fathers" dressing up their own economic interest in grand words?

I think it explains the hypocrisy quite nicely to see it that way.

 

[Aardvark154]

there were many people in the world living at the time of Thomas Jefferson who were quite vocal that slavery was an abominable violation of human rights.

Indeed there were but they did not use anachronisms such as "crime against humanity" which has meanings that just were not present in the Eighteenth Century. To say that something is morally reprehensible or a moral outrage probably conveys what I believe you are tying to say without dragging in the red herring of "crimes against humanity."

To what extent were there "founding fathers" dressing up their own economic interest in grand words?

Ah, I see you've read works by the late Howard Zinn or at least of the "Marxist School."

 

[GlennQuagmire]

Now that you mention the conservative conceptual grasp....

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/brain_die.jpg

Resorting to cartoons to win debates. Smooth move.

 

[GlennQuagmire]

That was as disreputable an argument back then as it is now. There is in fact no legal framework that can justify slavery, no fancy footed lawyer talk that can justify the complete suspension of human rights, as it is self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Black Americans were not endowed with freedom by the emancipation proclamation nor by the 13th Amendment: They were always free men. They simply had been victims of a crime against humanity up until that moment. The Constitution of the United States is not a document of sufficient power to revoke or to grant such unalienable human rights.

I wan't justifying slavery. Where the hell did you get that notion? Citing history doesn't mean you condone it. I know I shouldn't keep answering these irrelevent tangents, but I am hoping that it will eventually help people to stay on topic. Woodpeckr is another animal all together. I answer that troll for my own warped amusement. He is incapable of posting anything of relevence.

 

[GlennQuagmire]

I dunno, maybe his slave holding does not sit well with this part of your quote: "shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement"

What do you think? Does that sit well with slavery in your mind?

If you want a Conservative Jeffersonian slant you might look to his admirers at the CATO institute, they used to have this as their slogan: "Since [the American] revolution, civil and economic liberties have been eroded." Used to that is until Clarence Thomas paid them a visit and pointed out to them that it didn't seem that way to black Americans.

I don't condone slavery, but that doesn't change historical fact. Of course the quote still applies, only now in America it applies to all men (thankfully).