If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Thomas Jefferson was a dick   (nytimes.com) divider line 286
    More: Interesting, Monticello, Jon Meacham, visiting professor, state legislators, independent scholars, Criminal Code  
•       •       •

29217 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Dec 2012 at 5:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



286 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 10:38:41 AM

ekdikeo4: What will be the next group for civil liberties to be extended to?


Artificial intelligences. But it'll be a while.
 
2012-12-03 10:45:04 AM

clyph: He was, arguably, the greatest intellectual of his generation.


Franklin chuckles softly. As do Voltaire, Kant, Locke, and Hume.
 
2012-12-03 10:48:49 AM
Gee, you mean that lying, alt agenda hypocracy is not new?
Who knew?
 
2012-12-03 10:51:10 AM

Barbecue Bob: DROxINxTHExWIND: Fissile: To be fair, almost no whites of the time, including the abolitionists, considered blacks to be the equals of whites....or even fully human. Even the abolitionists of the Civil War era didn't believe in racial equality. Lincoln's plan for freed blacks was to encourage as many as possible to leave the United States. Research the history of Liberia if you don't believe me.

If you really want to dig into early US history, you'll find that the founding fathers were almost uniformly bad-ass mother-farkers. In those days personal squabbles didn't end up in law suits but in duels. Aaron Burr, the Vice President of the US, shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury (dude on the $10 bill), and it was all perfectly legal.

You cannot simultaneously hold the beliefs that this man was SO brilliant he could poetically communicate his ideas about freedom, but he was so stupid he didn't know that blacks were people. Were the people who refused to own slaves during the time smarter than Thomas Jefferson? Were the people who freed their slaves smarter than Thomas Jefferson? Or, was he just a hypocritical piece of shiat who knew exactly what he was doing, but didn't care because it kept him paid? It has to be one or the other. It can't be both.

Look at how simple your mind is. Cute.

The dude grew up around slaves. His earliest memory was when he was 2 of being held by the family slave.



I'm simple-minded, but your answer to why Thomas Jefferson held contradictory views on the freedoms every man should have is, "he grew up like that". I'm sure that's your justification for blacks who commit crimes too, right? Maybe you should listen to Thomas Jefferson, himself describe what he supposedly felt about slavery:

"Do not mistake me. I am not advocating slavery. I am not justifying the wrongs we have committed on a foreign people... On the contrary, there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184


So, now that we know he wasn't just ignorant, you'll have to find another justification for not calling him a hypocrite.
 
2012-12-03 10:51:24 AM

CheatCommando: Bullshiat. Thadeus Kościuszko left Jefferson an amount sufficient to settle his debts under the restriction that his slaves be manumitted. Jefferson did not take advantage of it. One of his contemporaries essentially gave him a put up or shut up moment, and he failed.


Not exactly. My understanding is that Kościuszko's will, of which Jefferson was the initial executor, directed him to spend the money educating and freeing slaves (in general, not just Jefferson's). It wasn't a bequest to Jefferson personally for the payment of his debts. The legality of the will was called into question, was passed to another executor by Jefferson, and the money was eventually sent back to Kościuszko's heirs in Europe after the SCOTUS ruled that the will was invalid.

Kościuszko left him a legal hot potato that got passed around until it got thrown back over the ocean. Hardly a put up or shut up moment.
 
2012-12-03 10:52:03 AM
And Lincoln thought blacks were inferior to whites, but he didn't think you should be able to own one in the South.

He did not free the slaves in the North though....he would have lost too much supprt.
 
2012-12-03 10:52:29 AM

macadamnut: CheatCommando: NewportBarGuy: agrarian

Defined as "slaveholding." In the end, thanks in part to Jefferson's worship of this ideal, we had a brutal Civil War where we put it down by force. made it temporarily unfashionable. 

/just taking the long view


The view need not be that long.
Slavery is alive and well on planet Earth, you just need to get out more.

/some things never have and prolly never will change, regardless of fashion
 
2012-12-03 10:56:02 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: You cannot simultaneously hold the beliefs that this man was SO brilliant he could poetically communicate his ideas about freedom, but he was so stupid he didn't know that blacks were people.


You're confusing incorrectness with stupidity. Even today, some very smart people believe some very stupid things. Why would it be any different in centuries past? Jefferson's ideas about freedom for all people were brilliant; it was his definition of "people" that was problematic. The man was wrong on this point, but that does not make him stupid.

Were the people who refused to own slaves during the time smarter than Thomas Jefferson? Were the people who freed their slaves smarter than Thomas Jefferson?

Or did their differences in belief spring from other sources than mere stupidity?

Or, was he just a hypocritical piece of shiat who knew exactly what he was doing, but didn't care because it kept him paid? It has to be one or the other. It can't be both.

False dichotomy.
 
2012-12-03 10:57:30 AM
OMG, why do these people have to pick on Thomas Jefferson??? The man was brilliant, if we had paid more attention to his advice, our country would not be in its current mess. Yes, he was hypocritical in some ways, but most people are to one degree or another. Hell, Bill Clinton is still popular with women, even with strong evidence that he treated women like trash and hit on them like a drunk fratboy.

As for slavery, first off, he tried abolishing it in the first draft of the Constitution and I believe it was the first thing congress threw out. Secondly, he believed that freed slaves would not have a place in society and would not be able to overcome the prejudice. I seem to recall that he advocated relocating them to a free black country, where they would not have the stigma of being a slave and could live as equals in society, not because he didn't think they were human.

The man has been dead a long time, stop trying to demonize him. The majority of his works and all of his advice were good, too bad there are still morons looking for reasons to justify ignoring it.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 10:58:27 AM

Scott_Free: Really? Who else would have kick started our country? He took a stand that threatened his life. A greater person than almost anyone in the history of our country. Show me a person who did more.


Every single person involved with the fledgling countries break from England did this.
Do you have ANY idea of what King George would have done to them if they were to be captured after the signing?
Entrails and internal organs being pulled from your body while still living was a distinct likelihood.
 
2012-12-03 11:00:09 AM

Bigdogdaddy: And all of this is nothing compared to what was done to the American Indian.

I don't know about that. This is not to belittle the cruelty with which both were treated, nor to say that one was more or less real than the other, but I believe that in both instances we are dealing with extremes to the point that quantification no longer makes any sense. One was exterminated, while the other was enslaved; there are powerful arguments on both sides to say which of these acts is more cruel, but I'm not sure it's useful to argue over the point.
 
2012-12-03 11:06:28 AM

GAT_00: Adams can shut his whore mouth! Franklin was unequivocally awesome.

Franklin was a huge dick, but rather than denying it he reveled in it. Being an ornery bastard was part of his public persona.

Actually, Adams felt he was turning over control of the country's future to France, which he was strenuously opposed to.


Which was Franklin's entire idea -- making France think he was turning over America's future to France. Worked, too.
 
2012-12-03 11:07:48 AM

hartzdog: marius2: Were there any presidents that were not dicks?

Garfield.


What are you talking about? Garfield is a huge dick! Always tormenting Odie, being a smart-ass to Jon, and doing nothing but eating and sleeping all the time!

/Wait, what??
 
2012-12-03 11:08:12 AM
Yeah...

he [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

That's from Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence which was removed in committee when, surprise of all surprises, South Carolina and Georgia threw a hissy fit about it. He didn't insist on its inclusion for that reason, thought South Carolina and Georgia might abstain from the coming war or join the other side as some of their citizens did do. Didn't insist that the abolition of slavery be enshrined in the constitution for the same reason. Conceded on abolition again with the Louisiana purchase and allowed the importation of slaves into the new territory, thought keeping it all free from slavery would ignite a civil war that he wasn't sure he could win. But he allowed for a glimmer of hope by keeping it half slave and half free, kept the house divided and knew a war would decide the issue. Then Lincoln, modelling himself on Jefferson and Paine, fought the war and freed the slaves and completed their work.
 
2012-12-03 11:10:52 AM

This text is now purple: Which was Franklin's entire idea -- making France think he was turning over America's future to France. Worked, too.


Franklin is very high on my list of People I Would Not Want To Play Poker With.
 
2012-12-03 11:11:48 AM

Millennium: DROxINxTHExWIND: You cannot simultaneously hold the beliefs that this man was SO brilliant he could poetically communicate his ideas about freedom, but he was so stupid he didn't know that blacks were people.

You're confusing incorrectness with stupidity. Even today, some very smart people believe some very stupid things. Why would it be any different in centuries past? Jefferson's ideas about freedom for all people were brilliant; it was his definition of "people" that was problematic. The man was wrong on this point, but that does not make him stupid.

Were the people who refused to own slaves during the time smarter than Thomas Jefferson? Were the people who freed their slaves smarter than Thomas Jefferson?

Or did their differences in belief spring from other sources than mere stupidity?

Or, was he just a hypocritical piece of shiat who knew exactly what he was doing, but didn't care because it kept him paid? It has to be one or the other. It can't be both.

False dichotomy.




I'll just leave this right here:

"The rights of human nature [are] deeply wounded by this infamous practice [of slavery]." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:201, Papers 1:130


He knew black people were human beings. Stop trying to split hairs. And stop trying to confuse the reasons that whites tried to dehumanize their slaves. They did it for their own benefit to rationalize their actions. It was hard to simultaneously be a man of God and a barbarian who sold children away from their families. There are idiots who believe that gay people are sub-human right now and they too will be viewed as fools who were on the wrong side of history. No one will look back in 150 years and say, "well, science had not yet proven conclusively that gay people were born that way in 2012, so those bigots can be excused". Try again.
 
2012-12-03 11:14:15 AM

CheatCommando: clyph: they were collateral on his (massive) debt.

Bullshiat. Thadeus Kościuszko left Jefferson an amount sufficient to settle his debts under the restriction that his slaves be manumitted. Jefferson did not take advantage of it. One of his contemporaries essentially gave him a put up or shut up moment, and he failed.


Better go edit the wikipedia article then, because it claims that his will was to go toward freeing and educating slaves. If TJ had taken control of the money and used it to buy his own slaves freedom from himself, it sure seems like a conflict of interest could come into play.

In addition, TJ debts at death were estimated at $107,000. When the courts returned TK's money to Poland, the bequest was about $50,000. So it would have only covered about 50% of Jefferson's debt
 
2012-12-03 11:14:39 AM
Following this lead, what will Farkers be taught about GW Shrub in the future?

Spin the invasion of Iraq in hero mode.
 
2012-12-03 11:18:23 AM
Great article.

Now any time someone quotes Jefferson, we can call them RACISTS!


/Also I heard that he was anti-abortion
//And anti-women's suffrage
///And opposed to gay marriage

BURN HIS WRITINGS!
 
2012-12-03 11:21:30 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: CheatCommando: clyph: they were collateral on his (massive) debt.

Bullshiat. Thadeus Kościuszko left Jefferson an amount sufficient to settle his debts under the restriction that his slaves be manumitted. Jefferson did not take advantage of it. One of his contemporaries essentially gave him a put up or shut up moment, and he failed.

Better go edit the wikipedia article then, because it claims that his will was to go toward freeing and educating slaves. If TJ had taken control of the money and used it to buy his own slaves freedom from himself, it sure seems like a conflict of interest could come into play.

In addition, TJ debts at death were estimated at $107,000. When the courts returned TK's money to Poland, the bequest was about $50,000. So it would have only covered about 50% of Jefferson's debt


Which would, at a minimum have freed half his slaves. The problem is Jefferson's lack of action when presented with the possibility of backing his words with actions. On the issue of slavery, he consistently and repeatedly failed. Contrast this to the risks he took for the Revolution, and we can quite clearly see that the freedom of black people meant little to him, while freedom for whites was worth risking everything for.
 
2012-12-03 11:23:18 AM
Thomas Jefferson saved this country. He was one of the 3 greatest presidents we ever had. If you disagree just read his Biography instead of the hate filled articles such as this.
 
2012-12-03 11:27:58 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: He knew black people were human beings. Stop trying to split hairs.


I'd argue he was the one trying to split hairs, not me. The definition of a person is a matter of philosophy. The closest science currently comes is to say "H. sapiens === person," and even today you'd have a very hard time finding anyone, conservative or liberal, who sticks to that.

And stop trying to confuse the reasons that whites tried to dehumanize their slaves. They did it for their own benefit to rationalize their actions.

Did I claim otherwise? Targets and implementations have changed over the years, but the practice is not so different now from what it was back then.

It seems to me that the real difference between us in this matter is in modes of thought: you judge, I analyze. Both modes are different, and both have their place, but it does no one any good to dismiss one or the other as non-thought.

It was hard to simultaneously be a man of God and a barbarian who sold children away from their families.

They'd tell you otherwise, though they'd object to your use of the term "barbarian."
 
2012-12-03 11:31:40 AM
henry Weincek is the dick
 
2012-12-03 11:33:39 AM
Shame Jefferson did not leave a library or such to rewrite his history favorably. (sic)
Like the latest Shills have done.

/think about what you base your "history" upon
// if only Fox survived to draw history from, where would you be?
 
2012-12-03 11:36:53 AM

GAT_00: NewportBarGuy: GAT_00: Stories say that Washington was offered just that post-war. They are largely unconfirmed though.

If Hamilton got all that he wanted, that's precisely with the Executive would have become.

It was a war over who would govern the country, the few or the many. Today, we can see who has won that debate.

No I mean supposedly a handful of ex-Minutemen came up to Washington and asked him to lead a coup to install himself King, because they didn't trust the ineffective AoC government.


There was widespread expectations in Europe that Washington would be installed as some kind of dictator or possibly even a "monarch". It was commented on at the time that disbanding the army and going home wasn't really expected.
 
2012-12-03 11:38:20 AM

snocone: Shame Jefferson did not leave a library or such to rewrite his history favorably. (sic)
Like the latest Shills have done.

/think about what you base your "history" upon
// if only Fox survived to draw history from, where would you be?


Actually, he did. We call it the Library of Congress now.
 
2012-12-03 11:40:23 AM

DamnYankees: dickfreckle: My admiration is of Jefferson is his body of work, not the man himself. We all love certain books or even music written by reprehensible reprobates. I don't see why this should be different just because he was an eight cylinder bastard.

I think its because his personal actions aren't merely incidental to his espoused philosophies, but in direct contradiction to them. It's be like if Roman Polanksi was really famous for making The Accused.


Jefferson's actions and philosophies weren't as contradictory as it sounds. He believed that all men were created equal. He also believed that blacks were not men.

The truly creepy thing, if you think about it, was that Jefferson, the man who thought blacks were sub-human, apparently wasn't above farking at least one of them. By his own standards, that'd be bestiality, no different really than screwing one of his mares.
 
2012-12-03 11:40:24 AM

GAT_00: Mangoose: But yes, Jefferson was a weird, strange, corrupt, slave-owning freak of a human being. His saving grace was his intellect. To which, one day, hopefully, we will be indebted.

According to Adams he was also more than a little self-centered and self-serving who wasn't interested in doing the hard work.


"Hard work" equals boring and monotonous, right?
 
2012-12-03 11:49:13 AM

Millennium: DROxINxTHExWIND: He knew black people were human beings. Stop trying to split hairs.

I'd argue he was the one trying to split hairs, not me. The definition of a person is a matter of philosophy. The closest science currently comes is to say "H. sapiens === person," and even today you'd have a very hard time finding anyone, conservative or liberal, who sticks to that.

And stop trying to confuse the reasons that whites tried to dehumanize their slaves. They did it for their own benefit to rationalize their actions.

Did I claim otherwise? Targets and implementations have changed over the years, but the practice is not so different now from what it was back then.

It seems to me that the real difference between us in this matter is in modes of thought: you judge, I analyze. Both modes are different, and both have their place, but it does no one any good to dismiss one or the other as non-thought.

It was hard to simultaneously be a man of God and a barbarian who sold children away from their families.

They'd tell you otherwise, though they'd object to your use of the term "barbarian."

=================================

If you were as analytical as you attempt to give yourself credit for being, you'd realize that there were MANY men who, at THAT time, believed that slavery was barbaric. When you claim that Thomas Jefferson was ignorant enough to believe blacks were inhuman to justify his contradictions then you ARE dismissing the real reason that he publically stated this belief. He spoke intelligently about the plight of slavery on Africans and the reasons why he held slaves, even as he spoke about freedom for all men:


"As it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other." --Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, 1820. ME 15:249

If slaves were inhuman, then freeing them would not be "justice". He held slaves because of the money they generated. That is not a judgment. That is an analysis of the facts. This analysis leads me to believe that Jefferson was an inhuman piece of garbage. Don't confuse my opinion with my analysis.
 
2012-12-03 11:50:40 AM

gerbilpox: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: And to put most of the blame where it belongs, it was the English who started and perpetuated slavery, and it was Americans that got rid of it....

Uh... no.

Actually, Spain brought the first African slaves to the New World, and Portugal brought far more to Brazil than were brought to North America, in addition to enslaving the Indians. Various other European countries engaged in the cross-Atlantic slave trade.

However, European countries mostly banned slavery before the U.S. did, in the early 1800's -- including the Brits. They banned the trade in 1807 (vs. 1820 for the US) and slavery itself in 1833.

Not to mention, of course, that "Americans got rid of it" only by fighting a war with other Americans who wanted to keep it, to the tune of over 600,000 dead. We can't really take a lot of credit for finally doing the right thing.


And the Spanish and Portguese got it from contact with arab traders, who themselves started it when the crusades and christianization of eastern slavs (literally "slaves) cut them off from european slaves and were looking for a new sources.

About 3x as many slaves were st
 
2012-12-03 11:58:53 AM
Public schools have been whitewashing history?
You don't say.
 
2012-12-03 12:00:12 PM

dickfreckle: Mangoose: But yes, Jefferson was a weird, strange, corrupt, slave-owning freak of a human being. His saving grace was his intellect. To which, one day, hopefully, we will be indebted.

/didn't read

You basically summed up the article without reading it. I think anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the individual Fathers already knew he was a particular nasty sonofab*tch, though they certainly won't be teaching that in high school Western Civ. classes anytime soon.

My admiration is of Jefferson is his body of work, not the man himself. We all love certain books or even music written by reprehensible reprobates. I don't see why this should be different just because he was an eight cylinder bastard.


Uh, we do actually teach that. Or at least, most of us history teachers do. And they did when I went through school. The problem is that most kids, including the ones I graduated with don't remember it... too busy not paying attention or taking notes or just plain not caring and then making the same claims post-graduation about how they "never got taught the truth" about history.

/high school teacher
 
2012-12-03 12:08:37 PM
All of this stuff about Jefferson means that he was the same as 99% of the white men living in the country at the time.

Like most people at that time, he believed that slavery would eventually fade away.
 
2012-12-03 12:11:42 PM

GAT_00: He was and wasn't. He hated slavery, but didn't want to end it for fear of mass revolts.

there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach [slavery]... we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.




Reminds me of:

Dictators ride to and fro on tigers from which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.
--Winston Churchill

Same sentiment, but 150 years later.
 
2012-12-03 12:12:20 PM

Mangoose: My current belief is that George Washington was gay. I am completely serious about this. The crying thing when he was picked to lead as first president about how this would ruin him is what flags.

But yes, Jefferson was a weird, strange, corrupt, slave-owning freak of a human being. His saving grace was his intellect. To which, one day, hopefully, we will be indebted.

/didn't read


The first statement: baseless homophobia.

The second: lucky summary of TFA, in spite of not reading it and feeling compelled to comment anyway.

This is Fark, ladies and gentlemen.
 
2012-12-03 12:12:53 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: If you were as analytical as you attempt to give yourself credit for being, you'd realize that there were MANY men who, at THAT time, believed that slavery was barbaric.


That doesn't make them correct; it makes them fashionable. They were indeed correct, but not because they had a large number of votes.

When you claim that Thomas Jefferson was ignorant enough to believe blacks were inhuman to justify his contradictions then you ARE dismissing the real reason that he publically stated this belief.

Hold on; you think I'm trying to justify his contradictions? I'm not; I'm only trying to explain how they arose.

He spoke intelligently about the plight of slavery on Africans and the reasons why he held slaves, even as he spoke about freedom for all men...

...yet you call him stupid.

As it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other." --Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, 1820. ME 15:249

If slaves were inhuman, then freeing them would not be "justice". He held slaves because of the money they generated. That is not a judgment. That is an analysis of the facts.


You're playing his words and his actions off against one another, ignoring the contradictions when it suits your argument to do so. His rhetoric about slaves being people, when speaking to abolitionists, is appealing, but as you yourself state at other points, his treatment of slaves points to beliefs that go directly against this. He paid lip service to the idea that slaves were people, but his actions show otherwise. Yet this doesn't suit your opinion of his being a monster, so you ignore his actions in this instance, only to bring them up again when you need to call him a hypocrite.

Don't confuse my opinion with my analysis.

Tell you what; I'll stop if you will.
 
2012-12-03 12:17:27 PM

Barbecue Bob: mbillips: Slavery was just one of his hypocrisies. Mr. Freedom and Liberty also prosecuted his political enemies under the Alien and Sedition Acts. He was an economic, social and military ignoramus, too; a nation of agrarian, slave-owning small-holders defended by a milita and no navy was a stupid idea. The Embargo Act was a stupid idea. Wrote some pretty philosophy, but otherwise was a spendthrift drunk and a bad president.

/OK, Louisiana Purchase, I'll give him that. But that's IT.
//The idea of Thomas Jefferson, though, as embodied by the Jefferson Memorial. Good thing.
///Oh, and the Jefferson Bible, like that.

So... you didn't care for the Declaration of Independence?
How nice of you to give him a small prop for doubling the size of our nation though.


Declaration of Independence falls under pretty philosophy. Most of it (the indictments against George III) is nonsense, too. Parliament was the problem, not ol' Georgie.
 
2012-12-03 12:22:12 PM
Drox


I appreciate your amusing and entertaining additions to the conversation
 
2012-12-03 12:23:40 PM
Given HIS view at the time that blacks where not human then Jefferson was in to beasteality Thus copulating with Sallie. There lies the larger question judging a man in his time and not in ours. One can only wonder if the sheep where safe.
 
2012-12-03 12:33:52 PM

Millennium: DROxINxTHExWIND: If you were as analytical as you attempt to give yourself credit for being, you'd realize that there were MANY men who, at THAT time, believed that slavery was barbaric.

That doesn't make them correct; it makes them fashionable. They were indeed correct, but not because they had a large number of votes.

When you claim that Thomas Jefferson was ignorant enough to believe blacks were inhuman to justify his contradictions then you ARE dismissing the real reason that he publically stated this belief.

Hold on; you think I'm trying to justify his contradictions? I'm not; I'm only trying to explain how they arose.

He spoke intelligently about the plight of slavery on Africans and the reasons why he held slaves, even as he spoke about freedom for all men...

...yet you call him stupid.



Ummm, no. This is where your reading comprehension has failed you. I never called him stupid. I said that YOU can't think that he was stupid enough to believe black people were not human beings and simultaneously believe that he was SMART enough to be one of the greatest thinkers in American history. Your entire post is supporting my point. He DIDN'T believe that blacks were inhuman. But HE was inhuman enough to ignore this fact for his own profit. You act as if I should weigh what he said equally with what he actually did. He spoke about freedom and abolition and he kept slaves. You think that there is some grand, undecipherable, complex explanation for why Thomas Jefferson said one thing and did another. Your "analysis" has led you to believe that he had noble reasons for being a hypocritical POS, while I don't give him that much credit. I believe that he knew blacks were people which is why he was farking one...repeatedly, but he did not have the character, the morality, or the compassion to give up his slaves even as he spoke out against the institution.
 
2012-12-03 12:37:58 PM

doubled99: Drox


I appreciate your amusing and entertaining additions to the conversation


Well, now I can sleep peacefully.
 
2012-12-03 12:41:22 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Millennium: DROxINxTHExWIND: If you were as analytical as you attempt to give yourself credit for being, you'd realize that there were MANY men who, at THAT time, believed that slavery was barbaric.

That doesn't make them correct; it makes them fashionable. They were indeed correct, but not because they had a large number of votes.

When you claim that Thomas Jefferson was ignorant enough to believe blacks were inhuman to justify his contradictions then you ARE dismissing the real reason that he publically stated this belief.

Hold on; you think I'm trying to justify his contradictions? I'm not; I'm only trying to explain how they arose.

He spoke intelligently about the plight of slavery on Africans and the reasons why he held slaves, even as he spoke about freedom for all men...

...yet you call him stupid.


Ummm, no. This is where your reading comprehension has failed you. I never called him stupid. I said that YOU can't think that he was stupid enough to believe black people were not human beings and simultaneously believe that he was SMART enough to be one of the greatest thinkers in American history. Your entire post is supporting my point. He DIDN'T believe that blacks were inhuman. But HE was inhuman enough to ignore this fact for his own profit. You act as if I should weigh what he said equally with what he actually did. He spoke about freedom and abolition and he kept slaves. You think that there is some grand, undecipherable, complex explanation for why Thomas Jefferson said one thing and did another. Your "analysis" has led you to believe that he had noble reasons for being a hypocritical POS, while I don't give him that much credit. I believe that he knew blacks were people which is why he was farking one...repeatedly, but he did not have the character, the morality, or the compassion to give up his slaves even as he spoke out against the institution.


Oh, I get it.
Like when Romney says he doesn't/does care about the little people.
 
2012-12-03 12:45:19 PM
Summary: All statesmen regardless of the magnitude of their good deeds had some percentage of asshole to their character which worked for or against their success and historical legacy. Stay tuned while Bob Bob tells us about the latest craze in hydroponics...
 
2012-12-03 12:46:38 PM
"[Jefferson] proposed expelling from Virginia the children of white women and black men."

How'd he feel about one being President?
 
2012-12-03 12:46:52 PM

mbillips: Barbecue Bob: mbillips: Slavery was just one of his hypocrisies. Mr. Freedom and Liberty also prosecuted his political enemies under the Alien and Sedition Acts. He was an economic, social and military ignoramus, too; a nation of agrarian, slave-owning small-holders defended by a milita and no navy was a stupid idea. The Embargo Act was a stupid idea. Wrote some pretty philosophy, but otherwise was a spendthrift drunk and a bad president.

/OK, Louisiana Purchase, I'll give him that. But that's IT.
//The idea of Thomas Jefferson, though, as embodied by the Jefferson Memorial. Good thing.
///Oh, and the Jefferson Bible, like that.

So... you didn't care for the Declaration of Independence?
How nice of you to give him a small prop for doubling the size of our nation though.

Declaration of Independence falls under pretty philosophy. Most of it (the indictments against George III) is nonsense, too. Parliament was the problem, not ol' Georgie.


did you come up with that pretty philosophy all on your own? Or did somebody never explain to you that an expression of philosophy is what it always was?

Saying that most of it is nonsense because it addressed the king and not Parliament is dishonest, at best. He was the king, his was the authority that was in charge.
 
2012-12-03 12:51:29 PM

verbaltoxin: The first statement: baseless homophobia.


Well, despite that I made no judgement on the matter, what are you using to assume I am homophobic?

verbaltoxin: The second: lucky summary of TFA, in spite of not reading it and feeling compelled to comment anyway.


The knowledge of who Thomas Jefferson was as a person is well established. That people are starting to offer up full works that show this side of him is inconsequential. Next you'll tell me that Adams was a neurotic fusspot, Jackson was angry all the time, Burr wasn't really a traitor and Hamilton had it coming. After that you can tell me how washington and jefferson freed their slaves with an eye towards posterity and not humanity.

To my first point:
Washington was a carrer military man. Settled down with a wealthy woman who had children. Had no children of his own.

That was not common back then. There a speculations abound that he was in love with someone else or that his bout of smallpox left him sterile. But not that he was gay? Add this to his stated fear of discovery and ruination? The burning of all his correspondences by Martha? That's worth a moment to consider. Hell, To not do so would be homophobic. Why couldn't he have been gay? Because he was married? Because he was an American President?

It's probably nothing of the sort or something else entirely and will fade like many of the half-brianed thoughts I have, but dammit I had it.

In closing? Close-mindedness and accusations. That is Fark.
 
2012-12-03 01:00:54 PM
We know Jefferson had this cold intellectual ability to compartmentalize. To speak the idealist's dreams of a perfect society, even as he tuned out the noise from the nail factory ? I guess the question we struggle with is, does the man's evils taint the great ideas, can we still aspire to Jefferson's ideals, knowing he failed to live up to them.

For me there is a parallel. The hippies in the sixties and early seventies wanted equality, freedom, and felt we had no right to wage war against the Vietnamese. Flash forward a couple of decades, and the same demographic, now with property and assets, supported the war in Iraq, reelected W, would go along with anything, just as long as the gas for their SUV's kept coming. The people who used to worship at the altar of John Lennon, now fight universal health care because it will make them have to wait longer to get care so the poor can have access at all.

A man with something to lose will drop his idealism like a hot potato if you try to shut off his Cable tv. Human Nature.
 
2012-12-03 01:06:36 PM
For his essay, "Thomas Jefferson: Superfraud," This is nothing but dead, white male-bashing from a PC thug.
 
2012-12-03 01:07:02 PM

hideous: We know Jefferson had this cold intellectual ability to compartmentalize. To speak the idealist's dreams of a perfect society, even as he tuned out the noise from the nail factory ? I guess the question we struggle with is, does the man's evils taint the great ideas, can we still aspire to Jefferson's ideals, knowing he failed to live up to them.

For me there is a parallel. The hippies in the sixties and early seventies wanted equality, freedom, and felt we had no right to wage war against the Vietnamese. Flash forward a couple of decades, and the same demographic, now with property and assets, supported the war in Iraq, reelected W, would go along with anything, just as long as the gas for their SUV's kept coming. The people who used to worship at the altar of John Lennon, now fight universal health care because it will make them have to wait longer to get care so the poor can have access at all.

A man with something to lose will drop his idealism like a hot potato if you try to shut off his Cable tv. Human Nature.



I reject that notion. 9/11 happened. SOME OF the hippies were not supporting war to protect property. They were fearful because of the government propaganda that told them more 9/11 type events were forthcoming unless we waged war. The same chicken hawks who supported Vietnam are the people who supported the Iraq war. Lets not act like we went to war because the flower children now have flat screen TVs.
 
2012-12-03 01:07:20 PM
I'd also like to add that it's men like him who keep the rest of us from landing a husband.
 
Displayed 50 of 286 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report