Thomas Jefferson

[oldjones]

No where in your linked material do I approve of slavery. You falsely attributed this quote to me -'Slave owning is OK as long as the law says so'. This is where you say I defended slavery. Do you acknowledge that you are responsible for this false quote? Please just try to answer this question and this question alone and then we can move on.

Those are single, not double quotes—actually I believe they're inverted apostrophes but it would take a typesestter to say—which would indicate an exact use of someone else's precise words. Single quotes are used to single out a word or phrase under discussion, such as slang, a common saying, a word being defined or, as I did, for a précis of an argument: words which are not the writer's own. Not a quote, but a summary.

Please correct me if I misrepresented your position. Did you not say it was OK for Jefferson to own slaves because the law said so? Was this a specific case of 'OK just for Jefferson', and not 'Slave owning is OK, as long as the law says so'?

Likewise, if you are still unhappy with my grammar; there are many sites that give this sort of info. And as you say, it's not "…a doctoral dissertation".

 

[GlennQuagmire]

Those are single, not double quotes—actually I believe they're inverted apostrophes but it would take a typesestter to say—which would indicate an exact use of someone else's precise words. Single quotes are used to single out a word or phrase under discussion, such as slang, a common saying, a word being defined or, as I did, for a précis of an argument: words which are not the writer's own. Not a quote, but a summary.

Please correct me if I misrepresented your position. Did you not say it was OK for Jefferson to own slaves because the law said so? Was this a specific case of 'OK just for Jefferson', and not 'Slave owning is OK, as long as the law says so'?

Likewise, if you are still unhappy with my grammar; there are many sites that give this sort of info. And as you say, it's not "…a doctoral dissertation".

My position is that it was legally "OK". I never offered an opinion on its morality. Morally I think slavery is definitely not "OK". I defy you to provide any proof that I believe slavery is morally "OK".

Your grammar is exquisite. Mine not so much. I really do appreciate your grammatical input.

 

[oldjones]

And my point is—and others seem to share it—that Jefferson, a man who spoke so high-mindedly (even sanctimoniously) about principles that transcend laws and may even require the just overthrow of those laws is poorly defended by citing legalisms. By that measure the American Revolution should rightly have been suppressed by the authorities. The law clearly required he and others be charged, tried, likely convicted and punished for treason.

Little people like us run no danger from living in the half-light of half-held beliefs and being sorta legal most of the time, as long as we don't draw attention to ourselves. Everybody does it, rich or poor, even a Jefferson.

But when you have the power to write words that get men marching and dying for them, to topple empires and behead kings, then those words will surely be used to judge you by. As they should. We do the man who wrote the Declaration and ourselves a huge disservice when we excuse him, or anyone from not living up to those principles, because 'the law didn't require it'. The point is do your best; the law asks only the least.

But you wanted to talk taxes, and we're still waiting for what you think on the topic.

 

[fuji]

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."

Nevertheless it was a crime against humanity. There is no other way to view it!

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

Never heard of him, just seems like common sense to me: If you look at the motives people have for what they say you often find self-interest behind apparently ideological constructs. People tend to adopt an ideology that benefits them.

I would call it a Nietzschean view more than anything else if you somehow think that giving it a label will enable you to ignore the truth of it. Seems like a cheap ploy on your part to dodge the common sense admission that the "founding fathers" of the United States were tainted by their biases and by their interests. Jefferson probably would have recanted "created equal" passage in the Declaration of Independence had it been spelled out to him that it meant he would lose his slaves.

The consequence is that Jefferson is an untrustworthy source, suspected of altering his statements and even his beliefs to fit his own narrow financial interests. He is, therefore, not authoritative on any subject of relevance today, and to th extent that his statements are considered valuable today, it is only because they are valuable when considered independent of the discredited man who wrote them: After all, even a discredited man can make a valid argument.

My point is simply that "because Jefferson said so" is an invalid argument. Now he may have made valid arguments, and if so, they remain valid on their own merits without reference to Jefferson himself.

 

[GlennQuagmire]

And my point is—and others seem to share it—that Jefferson, a man who spoke so high-mindedly (even sanctimoniously) about principles that transcend laws and may even require the just overthrow of those laws is poorly defended by citing legalisms. By that measure the American Revolution should rightly have been suppressed by the authorities. The law clearly required he and others be charged, tried, likely convicted and punished for treason.

Little people like us run no danger from living in the half-light of half-held beliefs and being sorta legal most of the time, as long as we don't draw attention to ourselves. Everybody does it, rich or poor, even a Jefferson.

But when you have the power to write words that get men marching and dying for them, to topple empires and behead kings, then those words will surely be used to judge you by. As they should. We do the man who wrote the Declaration and ourselves a huge disservice when we excuse him, or anyone from not living up to those principles, because 'the law didn't require it'. The point is do your best; the law asks only the least.

But you wanted to talk taxes, and we're still waiting for what you think on the topic.

I already posted that I am all for taxes when they are for constitutionally allowed expenditures. I would love to stay on topic but unfortunately I have had to waste my time responding to off topic nonsense.

The Jefferson quote was very straight forward, but look at all the noise that was interjected into this thread. None of it having the least to do with limited government and lower taxes.

 

[fuji]

My position is that it was legally "OK".

I don't think that slavery was EVER legally OK. There were people who were of the opinion that it was, but those people were incorrect. Slavery is, was, and always will be a crime against humanity.

The only thing that history has changed over the few hundred years since then is that the perpetrators are dead and gone and can no longer be punished for their crimes. We have to accept it only to the extent that we accept that we are unable to travel back in time and arrest the perpetrators.

 

[GlennQuagmire]

I don't think that slavery was EVER legally OK. There were people who were of the opinion that it was, but those people were incorrect. Slavery is, was, and always will be a crime against humanity.

The only thing that history has changed over the few hundred years since then is that the perpetrators are dead and gone and can no longer be punished for their crimes. We have to accept it only to the extent that we accept that we are unable to travel back in time and arrest the perpetrators.

Of course it was legal. The Constitution did not forbid slavery, which by default made it legal on a federal level. The States were free to declare slavery illegal, and some did. It can be argued that the Fifth Amendment should have made slavery illegal, but the Fifth Amendment applied to "persons" and not property (the argument of the day).

I know this is an ugly topic, but it deserves to be dealt with in an honest and factual matter.

 

[oldjones]

I already posted that I am all for taxes when they are for constitutionally allowed expenditures. I would love to stay on topic but unfortunately I have had to waste my time responding to off topic nonsense.

The Jefferson quote was very straight forward, but look at all the noise that was interjected into this thread. None of it having the least to do with limited government and lower taxes.

Did you mother never tell you, "You needn't sink to their level. Don't let them pull you down"

Neither you nor he has said anything useful about less government/lower taxes, and you have yet to reply to posts about lawful taxes for immoral puposes (the sorta stuff TeaBaggers go on about), but let's ignore all that. We'll drop taxing to return runaway slaves even, and talk 2010. So if the constitutionally-enacted tax laws take 90% of all you earn above the poverty line to bail out banks and GM, unemployed people about to lose their houses and to buy health insurance for all, that's OK? Not that you can't campaign for another point of view, and get it repealed, but until then you'll quietly pay up, and leave the BlackBloc duds packed away?

What you and he are both saying is 'I'd rather keep the money, but as long as taxing it's legal, I won't'. Not exactly a provocative view.

Cons make a fetish of the useless exercise of lowering taxes (and thereby crippling the nation/province/city) but resolutely refuse to start with what they (and the city/province/nation) will do without. Like a man economizing by telling his boss to pay him less so his expenditures will go down. Our current government's a fine example, and will then be replaced by Liberals who will actually have to get the house in order—see: Martin, Paul—because stupid short-sighted people who only focus on their own day to day costs can be conned. And don't belive there are no such cons among the Liberals. Or the liberals. Where's the vision? Certainly that's not in TJ's quote

The same blinkered view accounts for 'unalienable rights' still being fought for by women and the descendants of slaves. But then Jefferson was a radical liberal, and knew progress came not from parsing rulebooks, but from looking high and far for your waymarks, even if you must walk in the mire.

 

[fuji]

Of course it was legal. The Constitution did not forbid slavery, which by default made it legal on a federal level.

The Constitution does not have the power to speak on the matter. Slavery is a crime against humanity WITHOUT REGARD to the text of the US Constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation was an empty construct: It said nothing that was not already true. Fundamental human rights are recognized as being universal in scope and application to the point where we are willing to arrest and try world leaders for actions to the contrary regardless of any text they manage to insert into their own national constitutions.

The same logic applies to the US: It was not within the power of the US Government to make slavery legal. It never has been, and it never will be.

 

[GlennQuagmire]

Nothing you or he have said is about less government/lower taxes, and you have yet to reply to posts about lawful taxes for immoral puposes (the sorta stuff TeaBaggres go on about), but let`s ignore all that. We`ll drop taxing to return runaway slaves even, and talk 2010. So if the constitutionally-enacted tax laws take 90% of all you earn above the poverty line to bail out banks and GM, unemployed people about to lose their houses and buy health insurance for all, that`s OK? Not that you can`t campaign for another point of view, and get it repealed, but until then you`ll quietly pay up, and leave the BlackBloc duds packed away?

What you and he are both saying is `I`d rather keep the money, but as long as it`s legal, I won`t`. What`s there to discuss?

Laws are not "constitutionally enacted". Laws are made with little regard for the Constitution (see Obamacare). It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not to weigh in on the constitutionality of a particular law. Even if the Supreme Court decides that a law is constitutional it doesn`t mean that I believe it is. This is what elections are for. The President gets to pick Supreme Court justices, and liberal Presidents believe in the Constitution as a living, breathing document, and conservatives believe that words have meaning, and that the Constitution is very clearly written, and fully anotated by its authors.

You are wrong that I never offered an opinion on taxation. I posted this at 10:50 am. You must have missed it.

"My point exactly. I have to spend all my time slaying straw men.

Taxes can`t be evil. The men levying the taxes might be.

For the record, I am not against taxes being levied to support constitutionally allowable expenditures."

I don`t know how to link you to the exact spot on the page but here is the page link

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?302050-Thomas-Jefferson/page4

 

[fuji]

The Jefferson quote was very straight forward, but look at all the noise that was interjected into this thread. None of it having the least to do with limited government and lower taxes.

Well I think Jefferson himself has been thoroughly discredited by this thread. The only impact on your quote is that it can't rely on Jefferson for support, you'll have to argue the point on its own merits rather than by way of an appeal to Jefferson's non-existent authority.

You may well be able to--just because the man who wrote those words was wrong doesn't mean that the words themselves are wrong.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Resorting to cartoons to win debates. Smooth move.

Poor Gag!
He never heard a picture is worth a 1,000 words!....

 

[WoodPeckr]

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).

BS!!!!!!!!!!!
Your warped post 'infers' you condone slavery!....

 

[WoodPeckr]

Care to put your money where your mouth is? Let's have the moderator check my ip address against OTB's. If my ip address is geographically anywhere near to OTB's then ban both of us. If it isn't, then ban yourself. Do you agree?

I agree it is VERY STRANGE you block all from searching your posting history Gags!
What are you hiding for???....

 

[WoodPeckr]

Umm yes I view slaves as human beings. Relevent much?

Very germane to your OP quote, NO?....

 

[WoodPeckr]

WTF? ONCE AGAIN...CITING HISTORY DOESN'T MEAN YOU CONDONE IT! HOW HAVE I DEFENDED SLAVERY? If i mention the holocaust does that mean I approve of it?

Honestly, this is the most frustrating political forum because of all the straw men arguments. IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT ANY LIBERAL CAN STAY ON TOPIC?

WTF!!!!!
LMFAO!!!!!
Point is due to poor planning on your part, led to this silly thread blowing up in your myopic pus....or is that pussy, Gags! LOL!!!!

Sure looks like slaves never mattered to you......only the wealthy privileged property owners matter....like those lily White Teabaggers you now apologize for!

 

[WoodPeckr]

'Slave owning is OK as long as the law says so' - that I never made.

Again Gags, YOU infer that!.....

 

[WoodPeckr]

Your use of a legal technicality to defend/excuse/condone Jefferson`s slaveowning was here. Hope that helps.

LMFAO!!!!!!

Gags is indeed quite a PUTZ!......

 

[WoodPeckr]

I've only ever had one handle... I'm sure Fred could confirm that for you as I think he'd ban anyone caught with more than one.

OTB

HEHEHEHE
Seems to have struck a nerve!.....LOL!

With technology today you know darn well, doggone it, there are very effective ways to disguise multiple handles....you Betcha!.....

But being a Mac fanboi YOU already knew that!.....

 

[WoodPeckr]

Won't stop peckr from making the accusation ad nauseum.

Methinks our schizoids doth protest too much.....