Thomas Jefferson
- Thread starter GlennQuagmire
- Start date
Conscription isn't slavery: People aren't viewed as being the property of others, and they still retain fundamental rights. It's involuntary is the only thing is shares in common with slavery, but that's not enough to make it a crime against humanity, especially in the face of a legitimate threat.
What about the conscripted soldier who deserts on the field and is shot dead by his commanding officer, does he retain his right to life and a fair trial?
And the following which I was responding to is what you consider "rational debate"?!
This is the same sort of mentality as the Red Guards during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
I asked this question, to which I don't know the answer:
With respect to crime generally in the United States, what recourse do victims ordinarily have to recover funds stolen a generation previously?
Say an ordinary case of theft or fraud that comes to light only after both the perpetrator and the victims are dead. Do the descendants of the victims ordinarily have recourse? Or not?
With respect to crime generally in the United States, what recourse do victims ordinarily have to recover funds stolen a generation previously?
Say an ordinary case of theft or fraud that comes to light only after both the perpetrator and the victims are dead. Do the descendants of the victims ordinarily have recourse? Or not?
Getting back on topic, is it fair to judge the great Thomas Jefferson by today's standards? John F Kennedy quipped that never before had the White House seen such a great collection of minds except for when Jefferson dined alone. Surely Jefferson knew the hypocrisy of slavery with respect to the Constitution but before Emancipation, it was accepted among nobility to have them. Maybe he treated his slaves better than others too. 
Yes, most especially if he's being quoted in the context of a contemporary debate.
If he's being considered in isolation of any modern, present, contemporary issue or policy then perhaps not--but that's not the case of post #1, where he's being cited in the context of modern policy.
No.
As to the specific situation you are attempting to bring up this is In re African-American Slave Descendants Litig., 471 F.3d 754 (2006). As the Seventh Circuit wrote: "When a person is wronged he can seek redress, and if he wins, his descendants may benefit, but the wrong to the ancestor is not a wrong to the descendants. For if it were, then . . . statutes of limitation would be toothless. A person whose ancestor had been wronged a thousand years ago could sue on the ground that it was a continued wrong and he is one of the victims." and further that "this causal chain is too long and has too many weak links for a court to be able to find that the defendants' conduct harmed the plaintiffs at all, let alone in an amount that could be estimated without the wildest speculation."
There you go again Gags!!!!!!!!
Can't believe you posted such a stupid statement!
Some con you are!.....
It was legally OK but not morally OK. How can you not grasp such a simple concept? You honestly don't understand this distinction? If you really don't understand this (and multiple posts support this notion) then I truly feel sorry for you. Yet, I am also heartened that in some small way the TERB board helps you through what must be an immensely challenging life. Remember God loves his creatures both great and small.
No shit, GQ, I respected (though disagreed with) you until you mentioned this.
Now I know your arguments, no matter how well thought-out, come from a man who believes in fairytales.
Oh I grasp it Gags!
That was the same warped thinking the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, et al., used!
They ALL thought like YOU Gags!....
As long as it is legal, it's OK!!!!
Oh I grasp it Gags!
That was the same warped thinking the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, et al., used!
They ALL thought like YOU Gags!....
As long as it is legal, it's OK!!!!
Nope...you still don't get it. You really do have a severe learning disability. The abstract idea of morality seems beyond your reach. I pity you, going through life unable to grasp even the simplest abstact concepts. Once again I am heartened everytime I open this forum and see your name as the last poster on nearly every thread. I know you get so much enjoyment in smearing your excrement all over this forum. Your anal expulsiveness helps you cope with the frustration derived from your inability to fully understand that which is posted here. You do seem to be able to pickup on key words that somehow trigger rudimentary responses from you. Well done sir. Let's all put our hands together for Woody!
I am agnostic. Just having a little fun. I do however respect the rights of other to believe in whatever they so choose.
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.
You are tainting wise words (or conservative rhetoric) with an anachronism that was acceptable in his times.
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.
So then its status is that it was a crime against humanity which stands as a horrendous blight on the reputation of the founding fathers, who should be repudiated for their foul behavior, but their modern descendants are off the hook.
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.
