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  
•       •       •

29229 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Dec 2012 at 5:16 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-02 09:56:31 PM  
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
 
2012-12-02 10:04:46 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-02 10:05:12 PM  
Were there any presidents that were not dicks?

/Even Teddy shot dogs when girls wouldn't date him.
 
2012-12-02 10:06:15 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-02 10:07:05 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-02 10:07:41 PM  

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.


To be fair, John Adams was, by all accounts, an annoying, self-centered dude also who thought everyone was lazier than him.
 
2012-12-02 10:10:26 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.

To be fair, John Adams was, by all accounts, an annoying, self-centered dude also who thought everyone was lazier than him.


Yeah, but reading the bio McCullough wrote about him, the two people who really stick out are Jefferson and Franklin, both of which he pretty much loathed, at least from the Revolution era.
 
2012-12-02 10:10:32 PM  

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.


This. Exactly. Nicely said.
 
2012-12-02 10:12:03 PM  

bronyaur1: 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.

This. Exactly. Nicely said.


Yeah, but it wasn't like Jefferson was the only abolitionist who never freed his slaves. Admittedly Jefferson was more...free...with his slaves than others, he's still far from alone.
 
2012-12-02 10:16:26 PM  

GAT_00: Yeah, but it wasn't like Jefferson was the only abolitionist who never freed his slaves.


Jefferson wasn't an abolitionist. He was the opposite.
 
2012-12-02 10:18:02 PM  
I hate the newer nickels where he's looking right at you. Mind your own damn business, Tom.
 
2012-12-02 10:19:41 PM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: Yeah, but it wasn't like Jefferson was the only abolitionist who never freed his slaves.

Jefferson wasn't an abolitionist. He was the opposite.


A regular slave-lover, he was.
 
2012-12-02 10:21:50 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.


Indeed. What I really hate is that the body of work is more and more often shouldered aside in favor of screaming what a blue-ribbon asshole Jefferson was.

Okay. We get it. He was an ass. Now can we please move on?
 
2012-12-02 10:22:19 PM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: Yeah, but it wasn't like Jefferson was the only abolitionist who never freed his slaves.

Jefferson wasn't an abolitionist. He was the opposite.


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.
 
2012-12-02 10:25:20 PM  

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


Thomas Jefferson pretty clearly didn't hate slavery. He just wrote that he did.

Jefferson is an interesting figure, and certain parts of him are admirable, but I find it a little uneasy that people tend to be willing to give his words more credence than his actions. Jefferson never did a single thing, as far as I'm aware, to end slavery. He took zero positive steps in that regards, and was not a particularly good slave-master. He abused his actual slaves, both sexually and otherwise. There's simply no reason to think he was a secret lover of black people at heart, any more than you actually believe Mitt Romney loves poor people.
 
2012-12-02 10:26:35 PM  

DamnYankees: Thomas Jefferson pretty clearly didn't hate slavery. He just wrote that he did.


Ok, now you're claiming to know what was in the head of a man 200 years dead and how it contradicted what he wrote. Step back from the ledge of crazy.
 
2012-12-02 10:29:15 PM  

GAT_00: Yeah, but reading the bio McCullough wrote about him, the two people who really stick out are Jefferson and Franklin, both of which he pretty much loathed, at least from the Revolution era.


Adams can shut his whore mouth! Franklin was unequivocally awesome.
 
2012-12-02 10:30:21 PM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: Thomas Jefferson pretty clearly didn't hate slavery. He just wrote that he did.

Ok, now you're claiming to know what was in the head of a man 200 years dead and how it contradicted what he wrote. Step back from the ledge of crazy.


I don't claim to know what's in his head - that's what you're doing. I'm just looking at his actual actions.

You're the one saying that - despite owning slaves, treating them badly, failing to free them, and failing to take any actual steps in his life towards abolition - he hated slavery in his heart. And you claim to know this because...he said so a couple time?

Think about what you're saying, please.
 
2012-12-02 10:32:13 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't claim to know what's in his head - that's what you're doing


Did you suddenly turn back into a Republican? I'm quoting the man's writings.
 
2012-12-02 10:33:45 PM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: I don't claim to know what's in his head - that's what you're doing

Did you suddenly turn back into a Republican? I'm quoting the man's writings.


"I care about the 100%."

I just quoted Mitt Romney. Do you believe him when he says that? I mean, you should - quoting people seems to be your standard for determining what they believe.
 
2012-12-02 10:36:10 PM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: I don't claim to know what's in his head - that's what you're doing

Did you suddenly turn back into a Republican? I'm quoting the man's writings.

"I care about the 100%."

I just quoted Mitt Romney. Do you believe him when he says that? I mean, you should - quoting people seems to be your standard for determining what they believe.


All right, this is going to go nowhere. This is done now.
 
2012-12-02 10:38:58 PM  

GAT_00: All right, this is going to go nowhere. This is done now.


I truly hope you don't post again in this thread, or you'll be undermining your argument that the things people write are their true feelings.
 
2012-12-02 10:42:09 PM  
Jefferson was a god of his time. Compared to the rest of our founders, he was very progressive. fark all of you all who say otherwise.
 
2012-12-02 10:44:40 PM  

Scott_Free: Jefferson was a god of his time. Compared to the rest of our founders, he was very progressive. fark all of you all who say otherwise.


In what way was he more progressive than the other founders? He was certainly more eloquent, but progressive?
 
2012-12-02 10:47:57 PM  
Not a bible toting biatch. He thought for himself, and shaped our country based on beliefs that were based on human principles. That for his time was very progressive.
 
2012-12-02 10:49:03 PM  

Scott_Free: Not a bible toting biatch. He thought for himself, and shaped our country based on beliefs that were based on human principles. That for his time was very progressive.


Almost none of the founders were bible toting people, and all the founders signed the very idea Jefferson wrote. So I still don't see the argument.
 
2012-12-02 10:52:34 PM  

DamnYankees: Scott_Free: Not a bible toting biatch. He thought for himself, and shaped our country based on beliefs that were based on human principles. That for his time was very progressive.

Almost none of the founders were bible toting people, and all the founders signed the very idea Jefferson wrote. So I still don't see the argument.


About half of them were. He had the balls and the leadership to keep our country on the path it is to this day. I say give him some respect. Who else put us where we are now?
 
2012-12-02 10:54:18 PM  

Scott_Free: Who else put us where we are now?


Every other founder? And the leaders who came after?
 
2012-12-02 10:55:56 PM  

Ambivalence: GAT_00: Yeah, but reading the bio McCullough wrote about him, the two people who really stick out are Jefferson and Franklin, both of which he pretty much loathed, at least from the Revolution era.

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.
 
2012-12-02 11:00:03 PM  

revrendjim: Ambivalence: GAT_00: Yeah, but reading the bio McCullough wrote about him, the two people who really stick out are Jefferson and Franklin, both of which he pretty much loathed, at least from the Revolution era.

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.
 
2012-12-02 11:01:11 PM  

DamnYankees: Scott_Free: Who else put us where we are now?

Every other founder? And the leaders who came after?


Right. I'm wrong. They stuck their neck out and wrote a constitution for our country. Hell we must have 50 or so of them floating around somewhere. He was the MAN that started this country. Get over the things of the day that all people did. He was a great man, and better then you or I will ever be.
 
2012-12-02 11:05:04 PM  

Scott_Free: He was the MAN that started this country.


No, he really wasn't.

Scott_Free: He was a great man, and better then you or I will ever be.


He was an extremely complicated man, perhaps a great one, but probably not a good one.
 
2012-12-02 11:13:09 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: What I really hate is that the body of work is more and more often shouldered aside in favor of screaming what a blue-ribbon asshole Jefferson was.


This might not be the right time to mention it, but "The Blue-Ribbon Assholes" is the name of my next band.
 
2012-12-02 11:16:55 PM  

GAT_00: Yeah, but reading the bio McCullough wrote about him, the two people who really stick out are Jefferson and Franklin, both of which he pretty much loathed, at least from the Revolution era.


Read this book...

George Washington: Anguish and Farewell 1793-1799 - Volume IV

You guys want to know how important Thomas Jefferson was? Imagine if we didn't have him to battle against Alexander Hamilton while Washington presided over the Battle Royale that was the founding of this country.

He did more good than harm and that's all I can ever really ask of a fellow human being.
 
2012-12-02 11:18:01 PM  

NewportBarGuy: You guys want to know how important Thomas Jefferson was? Imagine if we didn't have him to battle against Alexander Hamilton while Washington presided over the Battle Royale that was the founding of this country.


Alexander Hamilton was basically right about everything. I'm not sure why this is good.
 
2012-12-02 11:24:03 PM  

dickfreckle: Benevolent Misanthrope: What I really hate is that the body of work is more and more often shouldered aside in favor of screaming what a blue-ribbon asshole Jefferson was.

This might not be the right time to mention it, but "The Blue-Ribbon Assholes" is the name of my next band.


It's the name of my "All-American Rejects" cover band.
 
2012-12-02 11:25:31 PM  

NewportBarGuy: GAT_00: Yeah, but reading the bio McCullough wrote about him, the two people who really stick out are Jefferson and Franklin, both of which he pretty much loathed, at least from the Revolution era.

Read this book...

George Washington: Anguish and Farewell 1793-1799 - Volume IV

You guys want to know how important Thomas Jefferson was? Imagine if we didn't have him to battle against Alexander Hamilton while Washington presided over the Battle Royale that was the founding of this country.

He did more good than harm and that's all I can ever really ask of a fellow human being.


I'm not disputing the value of Jefferson to the founding of the country. I'm not some Texan trying to write him out of history because he had liberal tendencies. You do have to wonder how much Jefferson swung the anti-Federalists. Obviously we'd still have a National Bank.
 
2012-12-02 11:27:27 PM  

DamnYankees: Scott_Free: He was the MAN that started this country.

No, he really wasn't.

Scott_Free: He was a great man, and better then you or I will ever be.

He was an extremely complicated man, perhaps a great one, but probably not a good one.


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.
 
2012-12-02 11:30:02 PM  

DamnYankees: Alexander Hamilton was basically right about everything. I'm not sure why this is good.


Agrarian vs. Mercantilism. States Rights Vs. Federal Government. I will absolutely agree with you that today we are living in a Hamiltonian Republic... However, that you had a man like Jefferson to fight for the agrarian and state interests, I think, made us stronger in the beginning... Especially as we were developing as a nation.

I think it was perfect to have them battle it out like they did. We got a little bit of both and went from there.
 
2012-12-02 11:30:14 PM  

Scott_Free: Show me a person who did more.


George Washington.
 
2012-12-02 11:31:43 PM  

NewportBarGuy: DamnYankees: Alexander Hamilton was basically right about everything. I'm not sure why this is good.

Agrarian vs. Mercantilism. States Rights Vs. Federal Government. I will absolutely agree with you that today we are living in a Hamiltonian Republic... However, that you had a man like Jefferson to fight for the agrarian and state interests, I think, made us stronger in the beginning... Especially as we were developing as a nation.

I think it was perfect to have them battle it out like they did. We got a little bit of both and went from there.


This is all fine, and it might be good to say that you need the counterweight in the argument, but at the very least if we're going to say that having two arguments is good, we can agree the better argument should be remembered more fondly, right?
 
2012-12-02 11:35:27 PM  

DamnYankees: Scott_Free: Show me a person who did more.

George Washington.


Bullshiat. Just a surveyor with money. Not even close to what Jefferson did Read your history.
\
 
2012-12-02 11:39:52 PM  
If anyone wants to fistfight me over Jefferson, let me know. He was the shiat. I have his back.
 
2012-12-02 11:44:13 PM  
Jefferson hated being President so much that he left it off his gravestone.
 
2012-12-02 11:44:22 PM  

DamnYankees: at the very least if we're going to say that having two arguments is good, we can agree the better argument should be remembered more fondly, right?


Heh... Nice. No, I'll stick with my initial observation that we needed both of them to create the foundation for the strength we have enjoyed. I tend more to Jefferson, but only because from my reading Hamilton struck me as a guy who just didn't give a sh*t about the common man. Economically, I prefer Jefferson's vision over Hamilton's eagerness to hand the reigns of power to the financial industry.

On the whole, if Jefferson had his way on everything, we would be VERY weak at a crucial time and it could have caused the whole experiment to collapse. If Hamilton had is way on everything... Well, we'd have replaced King George with King George Washington.
 
2012-12-02 11:47:58 PM  

NewportBarGuy: If Hamilton had is way on everything... Well, we'd have replaced King George with King George Washington.


Stories say that Washington was offered just that post-war. They are largely unconfirmed though.
 
2012-12-02 11:48:47 PM  
To add...

The man I respect more than any of them was Washington because he had to kind of pick and choose and pitch these two in fights and such. From reading his letters he felt like every President in history, presiding over a bunch of children fighting over a toy.

I mean he basically writes: "This sucks. They are all assholes. I just want to go home and make booze. *sigh* I have to do this again for four more years? Shoot me."
 
2012-12-02 11:52:13 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-02 11:58:54 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 12:29:44 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Hamilton struck me as a guy who just didn't give a sh*t about the common man.


This is a really odd thing to say when comparing someone to a slaveholder.
 
2012-12-03 12:38:08 AM  

DamnYankees: This is a really odd thing to say when comparing someone to a slaveholder.


As much as we'd like to think otherwise, slavery was not the issue way back then. We had more pressing issues to face, and taking the assets of half the states would hardly have been a unifying factor, as we later discovered.

Would it be better if I said white, land-owning common man?
 
2012-12-03 12:45:57 AM  

NewportBarGuy: As much as we'd like to think otherwise, slavery was not the issue way back then.


It was probably a pretty big issue to the slaves.
 
2012-12-03 12:48:55 AM  
Trying to compartmentalize people as all good or all bad is really stupid.
 
2012-12-03 01:20:12 AM  
You damn right he's a dick, he still owes me $2.
 
2012-12-03 01:29:26 AM  
People are critical of Jefferson for having slaves, which is unfair in my opinion. I believe it was mostly for the hot slave sex, and you really can't fault him for that.
 
2012-12-03 01:59:27 AM  

DamnYankees: 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.

To be fair, John Adams was, by all accounts, an annoying, self-centered dude also who thought everyone was lazier than him.


Adams was especially hard on himself, but he was admired and respected. As McCoulough pointed out- he was given a wide range of important duties throughout the Revolution and performed them admirably.
He also kept us out of a disastrous war. Started up our navy- which he realized was the key to the future. At the same time he singed the Alien and Sedition acts- wich he regretted many years later.

Jefferson actions are complex. He wrote eloquently and had a fine mind- but he betrayed Adams for purely political reasons. But he manage to take advantage if Napoleons problem in Hati to make the Louisiana Purchase.
 
2012-12-03 02:32:43 AM  

DamnYankees: It was probably a pretty big issue to the slaves.


just as child labor was important to child laborers, and the lack of rights for women was important to women. But, as was said, these things weren't an issue at the time.
 
2012-12-03 02:36:34 AM  
Neither Mr. Meacham, who mostly ignores Jefferson's slave ownership, nor Mr. Wiencek, who sees him as a sort of fallen angel who comes to slavery only after discovering how profitable it could be, seem willing to confront the ugly truth...

So forget those guys and buy MY book!

...um, how about no?
 
2012-12-03 04:35:22 AM  
I forgot where I read it but there was an interesting article that Jefferson really backed away from his ideas of freedom when his nail factory (pun not intended) became the main money source for his estate. He even increased his slave holdings to increase it's production as it needed young boys for the works. He didn't even free his slaves in his will. Mind you, the ideas should be independent of the person; once they are uttered they belong to the world and his ideas were greatly important to our nascent country. There was only one Cincinatus and he might even be mythical. ;)
 
2012-12-03 04:38:20 AM  

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.


dickfreckle says: " My admiration of Jefferson is his body of work, not the man himself. "

Just that soon in a FARK thread and I find a reasonable observation which I can, on the surface, support.

People, people, people... ol' TJ was not all what ya'lls teachers made him out to be.

/dick, how well do you know TJ?
//no, he wasn't doin' sally 

(Choose where to begin, Jefferson congregation)
 
2012-12-03 04:54:08 AM  
That said, the discussion could be fun but, the linked article was quite disappointing.
 
2012-12-03 05:07:21 AM  

The_Sponge: You damn right he's a dick, he still owes me $2.


download.gamespotcdn.net
 
2012-12-03 05:17:44 AM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-03 05:30:17 AM  
Was he the guy on Movin on Up?
 
2012-12-03 05:37:28 AM  
So a story about a coddled leftard professor attempting to come to grips with the idea the world was different at some point in the past. This history professor should consider a different line of work if he can't cope with the past. May I suggest puppeteering.
 
2012-12-03 05:40:26 AM  
i am not saying that it is space aliens but i'm saying it is space aliens.

and this is Buggs Bunny reporting from Jupiter.
 
2012-12-03 05:42:51 AM  

Scott_Free: Jefferson was a god of his time. Compared to the rest of our founders, he was very progressive. fark all of you all who say otherwise.


The personal traits of the American Founding Fathers?

s13.postimage.org
 
2012-12-03 05:47:13 AM  
Thomas Jefferson was a great man.
 
2012-12-03 05:55:09 AM  
Dolly Madison was a tart.
 
2012-12-03 05:59:37 AM  
All of the founding fathers were great Presidents who paved the foundation for the greatest nation the world has ever seen. (Yes we are better than you)

Its sad that we have lost our way do to a rapidly expanding ignorant population. The movie Idiocracy comes to mind.
 
2012-12-03 06:03:23 AM  
Lincoln would have so butt-raped TJ over the slave thing.
 
2012-12-03 06:03:24 AM  
I understand next weeks column has something to do with FDR supposedly being somewhat weak on his feet. I'll believe it when Ric Romero there writes it, though.
 
2012-12-03 06:04:59 AM  

Scott_Free: DamnYankees: Scott_Free: Who else put us where we are now?

Every other founder? And the leaders who came after?

Right. I'm wrong. They stuck their neck out and wrote a constitution for our country. Hell we must have 50 or so of them floating around somewhere. He was the MAN that started this country. Get over the things of the day that all people did. He was a great man, and better then you or I will ever be.


I think the thing that we're missing out on here, is that most people at this time in history didn't believe that black people actually are PEOPLE. To even the people who had the balls to put this country together, black people were less than human. It took a few more generations to extend the same rights that white men got to black people, and to women, and so on and so forth.

These people had great ideas, even though some of their beliefs were completely farked. Now, we work to extend those great ideas so that they apply to everyone, and we recognize that we are all people, regardless of our skin color, our sexual plumbing, and now our sexual preferences. What will be the next group for civil liberties to be extended to?
 
2012-12-03 06:05:20 AM  
I feel like a slave.
 
2012-12-03 06:07:50 AM  

david_gaithersburg: So a story about a coddled leftard professor attempting to come to grips with the idea the world was different at some point in the past. This history professor should consider a different line of work if he can't cope with the past. May I suggest puppeteering.


It makes somewhat more sense knowing that he's a legal history professor. So it'd be about the same as receiving a course in painting from a professor of liberal arts.
 
2012-12-03 06:08:33 AM  

bronyaur1: 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.

This. Exactly. Nicely said.


Agreed.
 
2012-12-03 06:09:43 AM  
Not sure why we're still pretending to be shocked when finding out that a random historical figure was actually a dick. It's... pretty much the same for every historical figure, basically it's a good thing that you don't have to be a saint to do something important.
 
2012-12-03 06:11:56 AM  
Deep Contact
I feel like a slave.

Jefferson's slave? that would explain your screen name.
 
2012-12-03 06:11:57 AM  
I am glad that someone had the balls to say it (finally).
 
2012-12-03 06:15:28 AM  

revrendjim: Ambivalence: GAT_00: Yeah, but reading the bio McCullough wrote about him, the two people who really stick out are Jefferson and Franklin, both of which he pretty much loathed, at least from the Revolution era.

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.


Apparently, Franklin also *had* a huge dick, if the old women of Boston, Philadelphia, and Paris are to be believed.

I read McCullough's biography of Adams, and I'm waiting with anticipation for a bio on that level of Mr Franklin and Mr Jefferson. Sadly, neither will come in my lifetime...
 
2012-12-03 06:17:20 AM  

MagicMissile: All of the founding fathers were great Presidents who paved the foundation for the greatest nation the world has ever seen. (Yes we are better than you)

Its sad that we have lost our way do to a rapidly expanding ignorant population. The movie Idiocracy comes to mind.


That and politicians no longer work together and come to a compromise, rather both sides propose demands and publicly state that they are unwilling to waiver.

I watch Idiocracy every election night, it somehow seems appropriate.

/Camacho 2016
 
2012-12-03 06:19:19 AM  

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

Thomas Jefferson pretty clearly didn't hate slavery. He just wrote that he did.

Jefferson is an interesting figure, and certain parts of him are admirable, but I find it a little uneasy that people tend to be willing to give his words more credence than his actions. Jefferson never did a single thing, as far as I'm aware, to end slavery. He took zero positive steps in that regards, and was not a particularly good slave-master. He abused his actual slaves, both sexually and otherwise. There's simply no reason to think he was a secret lover of black people at heart, any more than you actually believe Mitt Romney loves poor people.




When I read this highlighted section, the name and scenario that popped into my mind is Joe Paterno and pedophilia enabling. Tom made public pronouncements about something, took different actions in private, and history is revisiting his reputation. JoePa followed virtually the same path, with the only difference that JoePa's hypocrisy was revealed before his death.  Jefferson was deeply flawed, as are the rest of us, so stop trying to turn him into some sort of demi-god.
 
2012-12-03 06:26:26 AM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: Thomas Jefferson pretty clearly didn't hate slavery. He just wrote that he did.

Ok, now you're claiming to know what was in the head of a man 200 years dead and how it contradicted what he wrote. Step back from the ledge of crazy.


Well, to be honest, Jefferson successfully revolutionized the slave trade. He expanded it in ways that no one else was doing and then taught others how to best maximize their slaves. If he was truly repulsed by owning slaves then why expand slavery?
 
2012-12-03 06:28:04 AM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: Thomas Jefferson pretty clearly didn't hate slavery. He just wrote that he did.

Ok, now you're claiming to know what was in the head of a man 200 years dead and how it contradicted what he wrote. Step back from the ledge of crazy.

I don't claim to know what's in his head - that's what you're doing. I'm just looking at his actual actions.

You're the one saying that - despite owning slaves, treating them badly, failing to free them, and failing to take any actual steps in his life towards abolition - he hated slavery in his heart. And you claim to know this because...he said so a couple time?

Think about what you're saying, please.


Jon Meacham mentioned on the Daily Show that Jefferson tried to reform slavery as a young lawyer and then just gave up. I haven't read his book.

Here's the link: Link. Entertaining interview. Relevant bit comes at 28:25.
 
2012-12-03 06:32:52 AM  

MagicMissile: All of the founding fathers were great Presidents who paved the foundation for the greatest nation the world has ever seen. (Yes we are better than you)

Its sad that we have lost our way do to a rapidly expanding ignorant population. The movie Idiocracy comes to mind.


Specifically what makes the US the greatest nation the world has ever seen? Our freedom? We have higher incarceration rates than any other modern country.
 
2012-12-03 06:36:56 AM  

cherryl taggart: with the only difference that JoePa's hypocrisy was revealed before his death.


The difference is, being a pedo isn't looked at as normal and legal, slavery was.
 
2012-12-03 06:38:13 AM  

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

Thomas Jefferson pretty clearly didn't hate slavery. He just wrote that he did.

Jefferson is an interesting figure, and certain parts of him are admirable, but I find it a little uneasy that people tend to be willing to give his words more credence than his actions. Jefferson never did a single thing, as far as I'm aware, to end slavery. He took zero positive steps in that regards, and was not a particularly good slave-master. He abused his actual slaves, both sexually and otherwise. There's simply no reason to think he was a secret lover of black people at heart, any more than you actually believe Mitt Romney loves poor people.



When I read this highlighted section, the name and scenario that popped into my mind is Joe Paterno and pedophilia enabling. Tom made public pronouncements about something, took different actions in private, and history is revisiting his reputation. JoePa followed virtually the same path, with the only difference that JoePa's hypocrisy was revealed before his death.  Jefferson was deeply flawed, as are the rest of us, so stop trying to turn him into some sort of demi-god.


Right. Unfortunately, we tend to deify our previous leaders. Americans have difficulty humanizing history's giants. Hell, look at Jesus. It isn't merely enough to claim he was righteous, you have to believe in his perfection. Encasing leaders in glass isn't an American trait but we do it quite well.
 
2012-12-03 06:40:54 AM  

Chimperror2: He's also known as the first Democrat. Not hard to understand his 'do as I say, not as I do' approach to politics once that is made clear. Subby was spot-on (Spotted Dick?).


Jefferson was part of (founded, even) the Democratic-Republican Party. You could just as easily have said the exact same thing about him being the first Republican, as Democratic-Republicans of day were referred to simply as "Republicans".
 
2012-12-03 06:41:14 AM  
There is nobody, ever, who attained political power that didn't walk over a lot of people to get there. It's true today,it was true then. That in iteself would make him a ruthless man.
 
2012-12-03 06:46:47 AM  
Tea Party 2.0?
 
2012-12-03 06:55:41 AM  
Fun Fact: Thomas Jefferson invented chicken and waffles, the soul food dish.
 
2012-12-03 07:01:10 AM  

DamnYankees: Scott_Free: He was the MAN that started this country.

No, he really wasn't.

Scott_Free: He was a great man, and better then you or I will ever be.

He was an extremely complicated man, perhaps a great one, but probably not a good one.


This seems fair.

Amidst all the other trenchant moral relativism in the thread, I mean.

Napoleon was seen as devil, autocrat and liberator, dependent on which part of the old class structures of Europe one was attached and occasionally simultaneously. Caesar, the same. We remember these people from the big picture perspective of their long-term effects on the world around them, and less so from their personality traits or hypocrisies.

I find "Jefferson was a dick" to be as relevant as "Hitler liked dogs". It fails to understand that individuals whose actions can be perceived as positive (Jefferson) or negative (Hitler) in the world can exhibit contradictions or complexity, when in reality, very few people are 24/7 evil bastards or paragons of virtue. To expect that is naive.
 
2012-12-03 07:04:55 AM  

Scott_Free: Right. I'm wrong. They stuck their neck out and wrote a constitution for our country. Hell we must have 50 or so of them floating around somewhere. He was the MAN that started this country. Get over the things of the day that all people did. He was a great man, and better then you or I will ever be.


I've tried to roll a mental image that explains what I feel. If you see history as mankind dragging the ark of civilization out of the horror swamp of, ignorance and superstition, then you've got to admit, there are people back then who we would think of as sh*tstains, dragging hard on the ropes to pull civilization, which we all enjoy, another few inches out. And against them, a bunch trying equally hard to drag it back in.
 
2012-12-03 07:10:51 AM  

vernonFL: Fun Fact: Thomas Jefferson invented chicken and waffles, the soul food dish.


He was also the inventor of ice, The Macarena and Dave Coulier.
 
2012-12-03 07:12:35 AM  

Heist: Chimperror2: He's also known as the first Democrat. Not hard to understand his 'do as I say, not as I do' approach to politics once that is made clear. Subby was spot-on (Spotted Dick?).

Jefferson was part of (founded, even) the Democratic-Republican Party. You could just as easily have said the exact same thing about him being the first Republican, as Democratic-Republicans of day were referred to simply as "Republicans".


Despite the naming, the roots of the Republican Party are nowadays thought to have come from most of the Democratic-Republicans' opponents.
 
2012-12-03 07:13:53 AM  

Chimperror2: Sorry Godwin, you lose. Jefferson was a dick. It's now enshrined forever.


what is this even supposed to mean? It's been pretty common knowledge that he was a racist slave owner. How is this "now enshrined forever"?
 
2012-12-03 07:13:54 AM  
RTFA, sounds like the author has an agenda to press and nothing more.
 
2012-12-03 07:19:57 AM  

dickfreckle: eight cylinder bastard.


I'm stealing that phrase and claiming it as my own.
 
2012-12-03 07:20:54 AM  

Chimperror2: It's Godwins Law.


Godwins law says that the common knowledge that Jefferson was a racist slave holder is "now enshrined forever"? huh.
 
2012-12-03 07:21:43 AM  
Comparing morality in a different century is a little rediculous. Most of us wouldn't kill a person for being gay, or kill a black man for seducing a white woman, but a hundred years ago that shiat was pretty acceptable. In the reverse, I dont get called a slut for wearing a bathing suit but 100 years ago they would have arrested me. Times change. Jefferson was a defently moral man for the time.
 
2012-12-03 07:21:57 AM  
Ah, yes, another tearing-down of an icon, which we must do periodically. Ho-farking-hum. It's always a shock to find out that one's gods are human. Rather like Obama in that debate. God must never be seen to stumble.
 
2012-12-03 07:26:59 AM  
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. And I say that because I absolutely think that Jefferson was an enormous douche. So I'm barely making a defense for him. But everyone seems to be leaving out one very important part of the article.

The reason he cannot be considered a hypocrite for his treatment of slaves is that he didn't see them as human. And that was quite in line with the thinking of the day. Now that 200 years have gone by, and views on such things have changed, it suddenly makes it look like he was a two-faced prick.

In other words, he wasn't a hypocrite, he was a very short-sighted person who refused to acknowledge that all men, including blacks, are created equal.
 
2012-12-03 07:29:07 AM  

Chimperror2: Look up Godwin's law and the previous Hitler comparison and get back to us, newbie.


*sigh*

I know what godwins law is. I was talking about the second half of your comment "Jefferson was a dick. It's now enshrined forever." which is why I said " It's been pretty common knowledge that he was a racist slave owner. How is this "now enshrined forever"?"

now would you like to try again?
 
2012-12-03 07:30:31 AM  
The bigger scandal right now is what's going on with the latest Michael Jackson biography.
 
2012-12-03 07:33:32 AM  

rico567: Ah, yes, another tearing-down of an icon, which we must do periodically. Ho-farking-hum. It's always a shock to find out that one's gods are human. Rather like Obama in that debate. God must never be seen to stumble.


Yes. Very well said.

Liberals love viciously attacking America's Founding Fathers for nothing more than acting in accordance with the views of their time, which only by modern standards seem fatally inconsistent with their expressed ideals. But they expose their hypocrisy by voting for Obama, even though the man lost the first debate. It is totally self-contradictory to attack the Founding Fathers, only to turn around and vote Obama. Liberals are capable of finding fault only in the victims of their unrelenting hate.
 
2012-12-03 07:34:07 AM  

Chimperror2: He didn't mind screwing them and having babies.


he sure did.

Chimperror2: What other non-humans did he have sex with?


as far as we know he didn't have sex with anything else he thought was another species.

anything else?
 
2012-12-03 07:35:05 AM  

Chimperror2: *sigh* so you read Godwin's law but don't understand it. Go read it again. Get to the part about losing the debate and get back to us.


why didn't I have you on ignore already?
 
2012-12-03 07:35:51 AM  
If history records you as a "great man", then you were almost certainly a "bad man".
Truly, all the "great" people of history were dicks.

Still, who you are as a person doesn't generally have much to do with what you accomplish.
 
2012-12-03 07:38:39 AM  

log_jammin: Chimperror2: He didn't mind screwing them and having babies.

he sure did.

Chimperror2: What other non-humans did he have sex with?

as far as we know he didn't have sex with anything else he thought was another species.

anything else?


Even today, conservatives and liberals alike seem to have trouble with the concept that any member of H. sapiens is a person (though their trouble runs in different directions). Should it really come as a surprise that our forebears did as well, or are we calling out the splinter in one person's eye while ignoring the rafters in our own?
 
2012-12-03 07:39:09 AM  
Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.
Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.
 
2012-12-03 07:46:05 AM  
Perhaps everyone should read the entire book rather than judge the man based upon one critics take on a small part of his life. Jefferson was very conflicted about slavery but his views on slavery should be no means define the entire man that was Thomas Jefferson.
Even the short little piece they did on Sunday Morning on CBS gave a better overall view on his take on slavery than this piece did.
 
2012-12-03 07:49:06 AM  

MarkEC: Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.
Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.


But I'm not sure if that's the issue. Judging Jefferson because he owned slaves is not the argument. Rebranding slavery so that it was more profitable and more cruel while claiming slavery was disgusting, however, is an indicator that he was a complex man who often applied a different standard to his own actions.
 
2012-12-03 07:53:26 AM  

Bontesla: MarkEC: Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.
Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.

But I'm not sure if that's the issue. Judging Jefferson because he owned slaves is not the argument. Rebranding slavery so that it was more profitable and more cruel while claiming slavery was disgusting, however, is an indicator that he was a complex man who often applied a different standard to his own actions.


How many people today espouse the pro-choice position while saying that they would never have an abortion themselves?
 
2012-12-03 07:55:43 AM  
Oh good lord. This shiat again. Okay everybody, for the 14th million time: Jefferson, like just about everyone of the landed gentry of his day, owned slaves. Get the fark over it. All this "Jefferson was a monster" is pure fantasy. Why has this suddenly become so prevalent? Because he founded the Democratic Party. Get it?
 
2012-12-03 07:58:48 AM  

Lt_Ryan: MagicMissile: All of the founding fathers were great Presidents who paved the foundation for the greatest nation the world has ever seen. (Yes we are better than you)

Its sad that we have lost our way do to a rapidly expanding ignorant population. The movie Idiocracy comes to mind.

That and politicians no longer work together and come to a compromise, rather both sides propose demands and publicly state that they are unwilling to waiver.

I watch Idiocracy every election night, it somehow seems appropriate.

/Camacho 2016


MagicMissile: All of the founding fathers were great Presidents who paved the foundation for the greatest nation the world has ever seen. (Yes we are better than you)


I really get sick of that logic. People were far more ignorant back then, but most of them weren't allowed to vote. The election between Adams and Jeffereson took 36 votes in the House to decide. Fistfights in Congress were common, and duels occurred as well. Adams jailed journalists who opposed him. If the report of the Battle of New Orleans had taken just a little bit longer to get to (what was left of) Washington, the country would have split in half.

The country under Washington actually worked, sort of. That's because Washington in effect had unlimited power. The country from 1796-1814 was a huge mess. The idea that people were enlightened and compromised and that's why things worked is horseshiat.

The main difference politically between then and now is that now most major issues are already settled, and politicians no longer farking kill each other.
 
2012-12-03 07:59:03 AM  
Too bad for all the left wing cocksucking assholes that history so firmly supports Jefferson's point of view. Everywhere you look, from Oakland to Detroit to Washington to Joburg, Kenya and Rhodesia, you see the same failed governments and societies repeated over and over.
 
2012-12-03 07:59:52 AM  
FTFA: Jefferson did worry about the future of slavery, but not out of moral qualms. After reading about the slave revolts in Haiti, Jefferson wrote to a friend that "if something is not done and soon done, we shall be the murderers of our own children." But he never said what that "something" should be.

So, Jefferson was looking for a solution to the slave problem? A ...final solution??
 
2012-12-03 08:01:47 AM  

Chimperror2: durbnpoisn: I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. And I say that because I absolutely think that Jefferson was an enormous douche. So I'm barely making a defense for him. But everyone seems to be leaving out one very important part of the article.

The reason he cannot be considered a hypocrite for his treatment of slaves is that he didn't see them as human. And that was quite in line with the thinking of the day. Now that 200 years have gone by, and views on such things have changed, it suddenly makes it look like he was a two-faced prick.

In other words, he wasn't a hypocrite, he was a very short-sighted person who refused to acknowledge that all men, including blacks, are created equal.

He didn't mind screwing them and having babies. What other non-humans did he have sex with?


Didnt the DNA test prove it was his uncle?
 
2012-12-03 08:02:14 AM  

MayoBoy: Perhaps everyone should read the entire book rather than judge the man based upon one critics take on a small part of his life. Jefferson was very conflicted about slavery but his views on slavery should be no means define the entire man that was Thomas Jefferson.
Even the short little piece they did on Sunday Morning on CBS gave a better overall view on his take on slavery than this piece did.


I think that, too, is far too generous. As a person, he was a Bastard. As a forefather, he was a great man.

He wrote that he was against slavery while revolutionizing it to make it more efficient and, often more cruel. This wasn't a reluctant slave owner caught in an era that didn't quite feel like home. He dwelled on how he could change the industry to maximize profits. A process which included finding the right number of breeding slaves to replace slaves who die.
 
2012-12-03 08:04:09 AM  
I find it funny that the same people who biatch about the Old Testament "condoning" slavery are some of the same defending Jefferson's actions, when at that exact period of creation/existance, Jefferson could have done more about it. Especially since Jefferson wasnt a fan of any divine edicts of the Bible, as it were.
 
2012-12-03 08:08:55 AM  

JackieRabbit: Oh good lord. This shiat again. Okay everybody, for the 14th million time: Jefferson, like just about everyone of the landed gentry of his day, owned slaves. Get the fark over it. All this "Jefferson was a monster" is pure fantasy. Why has this suddenly become so prevalent? Because he founded the Democratic Party. Get it?


.
Things I've recently learned on Fark:

/All teachers are far right conservatives.
//All of the media is run by far right conservatives.
///There is a giant conspiracy by the media and the educational system to attack democrats.
 
2012-12-03 08:09:54 AM  

MarkEC: Bontesla: MarkEC: Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.
Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.

But I'm not sure if that's the issue. Judging Jefferson because he owned slaves is not the argument. Rebranding slavery so that it was more profitable and more cruel while claiming slavery was disgusting, however, is an indicator that he was a complex man who often applied a different standard to his own actions.

How many people today espouse the pro-choice position while saying that they would never have an abortion themselves?


And I think those people are also bastards.

This has nothing to do with trying to apply current moral standard to a previous generation.
 
2012-12-03 08:13:52 AM  

Scott_Free: Jefferson was a god of his time. Compared to the rest of our founders, he was very progressive. fark all of you all who say otherwise.


Why do you hate Big Brother? Do we really need to get the MinLuv involved?

/we are at war with Thomas Jefferson
//we have always been at war with Thomas Jefferson
 
2012-12-03 08:16:22 AM  

Chimperror2: He's also known as the first Democrat. Not hard to understand his 'do as I say, not as I do' approach to politics once that is made clear. Subby was spot-on (Spotted Dick?).


Is there anyone lamer than trying to shoehorn his own prejudices of modern political definitions into a discussion on historical political figures?
 
2012-12-03 08:16:37 AM  

Ambivalence: GAT_00: Yeah, but reading the bio McCullough wrote about him, the two people who really stick out are Jefferson and Franklin, both of which he pretty much loathed, at least from the Revolution era.

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


The other founders were just pissed when Franklin would get them to flip their wigs and casually respond, 'You aggrieved brethren?'

In addition to bifocals, Franklin invented the troll face.
 
2012-12-03 08:16:56 AM  

mike_d85: Deep Contact
I feel like a slave.

Jefferson's slave? that would explain your screen name.


Your mother gave me that nickname.
 
2012-12-03 08:17:45 AM  

ChuDogg: Chimperror2: durbnpoisn: I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. And I say that because I absolutely think that Jefferson was an enormous douche. So I'm barely making a defense for him. But everyone seems to be leaving out one very important part of the article.

The reason he cannot be considered a hypocrite for his treatment of slaves is that he didn't see them as human. And that was quite in line with the thinking of the day. Now that 200 years have gone by, and views on such things have changed, it suddenly makes it look like he was a two-faced prick.

In other words, he wasn't a hypocrite, he was a very short-sighted person who refused to acknowledge that all men, including blacks, are created equal.

He didn't mind screwing them and having babies. What other non-humans did he have sex with?

Didnt the DNA test prove it was his uncle?


As much as I have read about it it seems pretty indicative that it was Jefferson and not any of his family members since he was at monticello during the est conception time while others were not. Whether his children were products of a real relationship or not IDK, but the practice of "growing slaves" by raping slaves was quite common in early america. Cheaper that way. So even if he was the one farking Sally Hemmings it doesnt make him amoral for the time.
 
2012-12-03 08:18:46 AM  
www.magnetmagazine.com
 
2012-12-03 08:23:02 AM  

Bontesla: MarkEC: Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.
Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.

But I'm not sure if that's the issue. Judging Jefferson because he owned slaves is not the argument. Rebranding slavery so that it was more profitable and more cruel while claiming slavery was disgusting, however, is an indicator that he was a complex man who often applied a different standard to his own actions.


When people IRL who aren't Founding Fathers do this sort of thing, we call them hypocrites. Just sayin'
 
2012-12-03 08:25:12 AM  

log_jammin: Chimperror2: Sorry Godwin, you lose. Jefferson was a dick. It's now enshrined forever.

what is this even supposed to mean? It's been pretty common knowledge that he was a racist slave owner. How is this "now enshrined forever"?


"You used Hitler in an argument against X. According to Godwin's law, you have lost. X is true, and it is now enshrined forever".

What X is is irrelevant.

Does this help?
 
2012-12-03 08:25:59 AM  

Chimperror2: log_jammin: Chimperror2: Sorry Godwin, you lose. Jefferson was a dick. It's now enshrined forever.

what is this even supposed to mean? It's been pretty common knowledge that he was a racist slave owner. How is this "now enshrined forever"?

It's Godwins Law.


I just finished John Lukacs' "The Hitler of History". It's top of mind, alas.
 
2012-12-03 08:29:26 AM  
YAWN!

He was a ruthless slimeball. Yes, we know all this already.

He also did all the good things he is remembered for.

In other words, he was human.
 
2012-12-03 08:30:02 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: log_jammin: Chimperror2: Sorry Godwin, you lose. Jefferson was a dick. It's now enshrined forever.

what is this even supposed to mean? It's been pretty common knowledge that he was a racist slave owner. How is this "now enshrined forever"?

"You used Hitler in an argument against X. According to Godwin's law, you have lost. X is true, and it is now enshrined forever".

What X is is irrelevant.

Does this help?


Godwin's Law relates to how every single online historical (or not) discussion will eventually touch upon WWII and Hitler; when this happens people usually get pretty emotional, sometimes they suspend their rationality and civility, and all are left with is a flame war. Godwin's Law isn't a law of personal conduct, it's an observation of online human behavior. Think more of a natural law than a legal etc. one.
 
2012-12-03 08:31:06 AM  

xanadian: FTFA: Jefferson did worry about the future of slavery, but not out of moral qualms. After reading about the slave revolts in Haiti, Jefferson wrote to a friend that "if something is not done and soon done, we shall be the murderers of our own children." But he never said what that "something" should be.

So, Jefferson was looking for a solution to the slave problem? A ...final solution??


Careful....there be dragons here...
 
2012-12-03 08:34:18 AM  
Most people are dicks. ~ Ludichrist
 
2012-12-03 08:43:16 AM  
Thomas Jefferson was so loved by his slaves that many had a special name for him....Daddy.
 
2012-12-03 08:47:44 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Bontesla: MarkEC: Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.
Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.

But I'm not sure if that's the issue. Judging Jefferson because he owned slaves is not the argument. Rebranding slavery so that it was more profitable and more cruel while claiming slavery was disgusting, however, is an indicator that he was a complex man who often applied a different standard to his own actions.

When people IRL who aren't Founding Fathers do this sort of thing, we call them hypocrites. Just sayin'


I would argue that the description also fits Jefferson, also.
 
2012-12-03 08:52:02 AM  

red5ish: Dolly Madison was a makes tarts. Dolley Madison was a tart.


file.vintageadbrowser.com

OK, maybe Dolly was both.


/R.I.P. Hostess
 
2012-12-03 08:55:37 AM  
"If there was 'treason against the hopes of the world,' it was perpetrated by the founding generation, which failed to place the nation on the road to liberty for all. No one bore a greater responsibility for that failure than the master of Monticello."

The problem with putting the blame on Jefferson for not stopping slavery is that it was a volatile topic that would have torn the young nation apart. There would have been no United States of America if the country had outlawed slavery, because the economy of the southern colonies depended on slave labor. Practically everyone with political power in the south at the time owned slaves, and getting rid of slavery would have meant completely changing the economy.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_slavery_outlawed_in_the_Constitution
 
2012-12-03 08:55:54 AM  
i.imgur.com

Seen last summer on UVA's campus.
 
2012-12-03 08:59:00 AM  

ace in your face: I dont get called a slut for wearing a bathing suit but 100 years ago they would have arrested me.


You slut.


/whar pics?
//EIP
///just contributing to the intellectual discussion, that's all
 
2012-12-03 09:01:19 AM  
Just remember, slaves did not magically appear on boats. They were traded for by the locals. Couldn't just send them back, they'd be enslaved again.

I'm fairly sure that slavery and share cropping held back agricultural mechanization.

/I think it's Leviticus 25:44-45
//in case any Christian apologist tries to tell you slavery isn't in the bible.
 
2012-12-03 09:02:55 AM  
Yes, Thomas Jefferson was a dick. A huge, veiny, throbbing, DRIVING dick going into white and black pussy, alike, with great force!!!
 
2012-12-03 09:05:59 AM  
One of the Pounding Fathers, amirite?
 
2012-12-03 09:06:23 AM  

czei: The problem with putting the blame on Jefferson for not stopping slavery is that it was a volatile topic that would have torn the young nation apart. There would have been no United States of America if the country had outlawed slavery, because the economy of the southern colonies depended on slave labor. Practically everyone with political power in the south at the time owned slaves, and getting rid of slavery would have meant completely changing the economy.


Doesn't matter, to most FARKers the US should have ended up like Haiti, and the fact that it didn't is one of history's greatest injustices.

/better to be king of hell than a mere president in heaven
//even if you end up being a slave in hell, at least there's a chance of becoming a king who gets to force everyone else to follow rules while being able to ignore them yourself... there's no chance of that in any true democracy
 
2012-12-03 09:13:56 AM  
"Political foes were often the victim of a vulgar joke perpetrated by Jefferson during legislative debate. During such debate, once recognized by the Chair, a speaker was free to wander about the legislative chamber, while other legislators were expected to remain seated. Jefferson, who ate a diet rich with beans, cheese and eggs, discovered that he could torment those who opposed his viewpoint by strategically passing gas, oftentimes mere inches away from the nostrals of his enemy. Jefferson jokingly referred to this tactic as the "Shenandoah Fog." - Page Smith, Jefferson: A Revealing Biography
 
2012-12-03 09:16:02 AM  
madison was 10 times as bad. Madison was the manipulative plutocrat who created and helped install our current undemocratic constitution.
 
2012-12-03 09:17:22 AM  
Black guys who didn't stand during the Pledge of Allegience all nod, knowingly.


/Founding Fathers. Pffft.
 
2012-12-03 09:17:23 AM  
Free blacks were "pests in society" who were "as incapable as children of taking care of themselves."

....

But isn't that true?

/i keed i keed
 
2012-12-03 09:19:54 AM  
The quotes that I am familiar with were taken horribly out of context. Lots of books about Jefferson have won *Major Awards*. I'll be shocked if this guy's does.
 
2012-12-03 09:24:08 AM  
The Christopher Hitchens book about TJ painted him as a flawed, complex, intellectual who eventually compromised his principles by breaking his word to his slaves and selling them down the river to pay his debts. Basically.

did not read
 
2012-12-03 09:33:37 AM  
IMO This is tagging in the news again, because the last scene in the movie "Killing Them Softly" has a matter of fact comment from Brad Pitt's character about Jefferson and the US not being a country, but a business.

Sadly, truth rings and the liberty bell cracks.
 
2012-12-03 09:34:34 AM  

ace in your face: ChuDogg: Chimperror2: durbnpoisn: I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. And I say that because I absolutely think that Jefferson was an enormous douche. So I'm barely making a defense for him. But everyone seems to be leaving out one very important part of the article.

The reason he cannot be considered a hypocrite for his treatment of slaves is that he didn't see them as human. And that was quite in line with the thinking of the day. Now that 200 years have gone by, and views on such things have changed, it suddenly makes it look like he was a two-faced prick.

In other words, he wasn't a hypocrite, he was a very short-sighted person who refused to acknowledge that all men, including blacks, are created equal.

He didn't mind screwing them and having babies. What other non-humans did he have sex with?

Didnt the DNA test prove it was his uncle?

As much as I have read about it it seems pretty indicative that it was Jefferson and not any of his family members since he was at monticello during the est conception time while others were not. Whether his children were products of a real relationship or not IDK, but the practice of "growing slaves" by raping slaves was quite common in early america. Cheaper that way. So even if he was the one farking Sally Hemmings it doesnt make him amoral for the time.


Everything I've read has indicated the opposite. The original charge came about when Jefferson ran for election that he fathered a black baby. Then, as now, it pointed that his uncle fathered the last of Sally Hemings children.

When the DNA movement picked up steam and many of Hemings descendants wanted heir to the estate the charges picked up steam again. This time, that Jefferson fathered ALL of hemings children in a secret love affair. Though the testing revealed exactly what we knew in 1800, that a male line in the Jefferson family fathered the child. Which one could not be specified.

I suppose we could prpbably do further testing, but its pretty telling that the Hemings family does not want to do any more DNA testd has their oral history is "good enough".

Simply put, there isnt any more evidence to the charge now than their was in 1800.
 
2012-12-03 09:38:13 AM  

Tatterdemalian: czei: The problem with putting the blame on Jefferson for not stopping slavery is that it was a volatile topic that would have torn the young nation apart. There would have been no United States of America if the country had outlawed slavery, because the economy of the southern colonies depended on slave labor. Practically everyone with political power in the south at the time owned slaves, and getting rid of slavery would have meant completely changing the economy.

Doesn't matter, to most FARKers the US should have ended up like Haiti, and the fact that it didn't is one of history's greatest injustices.

/better to be king of hell than a mere president in heaven
//even if you end up being a slave in hell, at least there's a chance of becoming a king who gets to force everyone else to follow rules while being able to ignore them yourself... there's no chance of that in any true democracy


Yeah, because there is absolutely no way in between practicing what you preach, and willingly putting your head on the block when your liberated slave is about to chop it off.
 
2012-12-03 09:39:00 AM  

ace in your face: Comparing morality in a different century is a little rediculous. Most of us wouldn't kill a person for being gay, or kill a black man for seducing a white woman, but a hundred years ago that shiat was pretty acceptable. In the reverse, I dont get called a slut for wearing a bathing suit but 100 years ago they would have arrested me. Times change. Jefferson was a defently moral man for the time.


And in the 1940s Hitler thought Jews were less than human, so that's ok too, right?
 
2012-12-03 09:41:19 AM  
Thomas Jefferson was a dickpowerful national leader without constant twenty-four hour attention to everything he said and did.
 
2012-12-03 09:41:58 AM  
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.
 
2012-12-03 09:42:21 AM  
This would certainly explain the fascination the current brand of Republicans have with Jefferson.
 
2012-12-03 09:42:26 AM  
Well, after reading this article, it's obvious why newspapers are doing so well.

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.... The Revolutionary War ended in 1783, but already by 1777 States were passing anti-slavery laws.

/yes it could have been quicker
//yes segregation was moronic
///no, I'm not saying America is free and clear
////why are you still reading this?
 
2012-12-03 09:44:51 AM  

marius2: Were there any presidents that were not dicks?


Garfield.
 
2012-12-03 09:45:21 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: so that's ok too, right?


Don't be silly, the Jews in question were white.
 
2012-12-03 09:45:22 AM  

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.


Actually, it was illegal, and Burr had to flee to Mexico to escape prosecution. The rest of what you said is correct.
 
2012-12-03 09:46:38 AM  
Rather than encouraging his countrymen to liberate their slaves, he opposed both private manumission and public emancipation. Even at his death, Jefferson failed to fulfill the promise of his rhetoric: his will emancipated only five slaves, all relatives of his mistress Sally Hemings, and condemned nearly 200 others to the auction block. Even Hemings remained a slave, though her children by Jefferson went free.

I see what you did there, NYT writer. Didn't mention Hemings anywhere else in the entire article talking about how horrible he was, but you just had to slip that one line in. Nice and trolly-like.

As far as I'm concerned, it's far too deep down the family tree to know anything for sure, even biologically. And even if it wasn't, while our modern morality decries it, theirs didn't. I'm not saying it was right then or now, just saying that I think we make heroes out of whom we want, how we want, and calling someone horrible 186 years after they die really doesn't change the previous views without better proof than the legends and nine or ten generations of watered down DNA.
 
2012-12-03 09:49:44 AM  
Not to deny that Jefferson was an utter bastard, but the last letter link actually states almost the exact opposite of what the writer says. Jefferson says he wants to spread slavery to the new territories, but then says that he wants to do so as to "spread the slaves out" and make it easier to enact emancipation. And then his "failure of the present generation" quote also appears to refer to the failure to end slavery, not the failure to continue it like the author says.
 
2012-12-03 09:49:45 AM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: I don't claim to know what's in his head - that's what you're doing

Did you suddenly turn back into a Republican? I'm quoting the man's writings.

"I care about the 100%."

I just quoted Mitt Romney. Do you believe him when he says that? I mean, you should - quoting people seems to be your standard for determining what they believe.

All right, this is going to go nowhere. This is done now.


snap? Yankee makes a mighty strong case.
 
2012-12-03 09:51:01 AM  

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

Thomas Jefferson pretty clearly didn't hate slavery. He just wrote that he did.

Jefferson is an interesting figure, and certain parts of him are admirable, but I find it a little uneasy that people tend to be willing to give his words more credence than his actions. Jefferson never did a single thing, as far as I'm aware, to end slavery. He took zero positive steps in that regards, and was not a particularly good slave-master. He abused his actual slaves, both sexually and otherwise. There's simply no reason to think he was a secret lover of black people at heart, any more than you actually believe Mitt Romney loves poor people.


Because our society is founded on his words and not his actions. Same with Martin Luther King whose glorious words inspire long after we stopped caring that he cheated on his wife.
 
2012-12-03 09:51:14 AM  
FTFA: "His proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience."

WTF, totally uncalled for Mr. Finkelman...
 
2012-12-03 09:51:17 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Actually, it was illegal, and Burr had to flee to Mexico to escape prosecution. The rest of what you said is correct.


To be fair to Burr, he was batshiat insane.
 
2012-12-03 09:51:51 AM  

ChuDogg:
Didnt the DNA test prove it was his uncle?


IMHO, Randolph, his brother, was the most likely father. During the time period that most likely led to the descendents, Randolph had spent time at Monticello and was known as someone who was a problem for women when he became drunk. The DNA evidence simply shows it came from the Jefferson family, but not directly Thomas. Considering his issues with slavery, I personally see it more likely that another family member responsible for this issue.
 
2012-12-03 09:51:57 AM  

gshepnyc: Because our society is founded on his words and not his actions. Same with Martin Luther King whose glorious words inspire long after we stopped caring that he cheated on his wife.


This is a terrible analogy.
 
2012-12-03 09:53:32 AM  
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.
 
2012-12-03 09:55:33 AM  
It's not a paradox or a contradiction. The fact that he owned slaves does NOTHING to change or offset the qualities he is admired for.
 
2012-12-03 09:55:33 AM  
The dead have always bothered the living.
 
2012-12-03 09:56:26 AM  
Thomas Jefferson was had a dick 

100 barefooted little Thandie Newtons running around and rape wasn't a crime? I'd be out there in the hayloft right now.
 
2012-12-03 09:56:36 AM  

doubled99: The fact that he owned slaves does NOTHING to change or offset the qualities he is admired for.


It's almost like you aren't addressing the argument.
 
2012-12-03 09:59:57 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: 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.

Actually, it was illegal, and Burr had to flee to Mexico to escape prosecution. The rest of what you said is correct.


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

Sorry, but you are in error. At the time, the capitol of the US was located in NYC. Dueling was ILLEGAL in New York, but LEGAL across the river in New Jersey, that's why Hamilton and Burr got into a row boat and went over to Weehawken, NJ to have the duel. There is a monument to Hamilton located on the spot in Weehawken, I've been by there many times.

After the duel, Burr was indicted for murder in Bergen County, NJ, but the indictment was thrown out based on the fact that dueling was not illegal in New Jersey at the time of the duel. Burr was eventually charged with treason for attempting to separate the Louisiana Territory from the US, but those charges were eventually thrown out as well. Burr's political career was beyond redemption at that point, and he spent his final years as a lawyer in NYC.
 
2012-12-03 10:01:05 AM  

Scott_Free: If anyone wants to fistfight me over Jefferson, let me know. He was the shiat. I have his back.


I'm not much into fighting, but I'll shoot you a game of bridge board marbles, or maybe boss pit. I'll warn you ahead of time though, I was two time oak grove town champion in third grade.
 
2012-12-03 10:01:11 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 10:02:04 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: 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.

Indeed. What I really hate is that the body of work is more and more often shouldered aside in favor of screaming what a blue-ribbon asshole Jefferson was.

Okay. We get it. He was an ass. Now can we please move on?


We can always do a Texas school board act and strip him out of history books to make room for the historical significance of Newt Gingrich.
 
2012-12-03 10:03:21 AM  

GAT_00:
Ok, now you're claiming to know what was in the head of a man 200 years dead and how it contradicted what he wrote. Step back from the ledge of crazy.


I think Jackson had a particular fondness for American Indians
 
2012-12-03 10:04:57 AM  
The fact that we are all here reading this thread today is in large part to Jefferson's passion about everyone having access to a free and public education. While he tended to be a small gov't guy about almost everything else and hated taxes, he was absolutely convinced that our republic would not last without an educated populace to see through sophistry. Jefferson even went so far as to submit and amendment to the constitution ensuring education as a right but he withdrew it because in his heart he was a state's rights guy. So instead he worked to see education enshrined as a right in each state's constitution.
 
2012-12-03 10:06:00 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 10:07:54 AM  

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.


In the age that most of the world still believed that people in power, like royalty, were not made of the same stuff as the people below their status, I can't imagine why he couldn't hold both views without too many people of the age disagreeing.
 
2012-12-03 10:09:29 AM  

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.


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

What I'm suggesting is that the majority of people who were against slavery did not base their position on the morality or ethics of slavery, but were concerned with the bigger economic picture. The industrial revolution was well underway by the time the US was founded, and it was clear to most that slavery and the economics of industrialization were incompatible. That's why a person could be anti-slavery and yet not believe in racial equality.
 
2012-12-03 10:11:10 AM  
That is quite a conspiracy theory. It only took 200 years to uncover the true nature of Jefferson. All the historians have been lying to us apparently.
 
2012-12-03 10:11:52 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 10:16:43 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 10:18:16 AM  
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.




Yes. It can. Next.
 
2012-12-03 10:19:09 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 10:19:15 AM  

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: Well, after reading this article, it's obvious why newspapers are doing so well.

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.... The Revolutionary War ended in 1783, but already by 1777 States were passing anti-slavery laws.

/yes it could have been quicker
//yes segregation was moronic
///no, I'm not saying America is free and clear
////why are you still reading this?


Slavery was declared illegal in Britain in 1772, the slave trade abolished in the British Empire in 1807 an the act of slavery was abolished in the Brish Empire in 1833.

So when did America end its own slave trade?

/history
//far more complex than most people like
 
2012-12-03 10:20:45 AM  
This just in: Our founding fathers were human beings with both greatness and flaws just like anyone else who ever lived.

They did a pretty whiz-bang job of raising a nation, though.
 
2012-12-03 10:21:46 AM  

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
 
2012-12-03 10:22:55 AM  
Came for the young persons guide to left disappoint,
Jefferson was a dick
 
2012-12-03 10:26:29 AM  

DamnYankees: Jefferson wasn't an abolitionist. He was the opposite.


Depends on what point in his life you were talking about. Younger Jefferson, you could argue either way. Older Jefferson, once he figured out how farking profitable slave labor was, was definitely pro-slavery.

As to not freeing his slaves, he did free the Hemmings family (his mistress's kin). As to the rest, regardless of whether he wanted to or not, he couldn't have done it - they were collateral on his (massive) debt.
 
2012-12-03 10:33:34 AM  

Scott_Free: If anyone wants to fistfight me over Jefferson, let me know. He was the shiat. I have his back.


I hope that this is the most ridiculous thing I'll read or hear all day, but I doubt it.
 
2012-12-03 10:35:34 AM  
He was a ginger. Of course he was a soulless bastard.
 
2012-12-03 10:36:56 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 10:37:01 AM  

doubled99: It's not a paradox or a contradiction. The fact that he owned slaves does NOTHING to change or offset the qualities he is admired for.


Pretty much THIS.

He was, arguably, the greatest intellectual of his generation. He was also an arrogant, hypocritical spendthrift.
 
2012-12-03 10:38:11 AM  

The Irresponsible Captain: This just in: Our founding fathers were human beings with both greatness and flaws just like anyone else who ever lived.

They did a pretty whiz-bang job of raising a nation, though.


See, that is what I like about the Founding Fathers of the US. Not the idealised history book version, but in reality the complex individuals, who motives, thoughts and passions make you think and who had flaws, but also some good ideas. Sure most of them were egomanical madmen, but these people tend to be the ones with an ego big enough to get things rolling.
 
2012-12-03 10:38:19 AM  
And all of this is nothing compared to what was done to the American Indian.
 
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.
 
2012-12-03 01:11:51 PM  
 
2012-12-03 01:17:32 PM  
He didn't mind whipping children, for profit.
 
2012-12-03 01:19:43 PM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: Yeah, but it wasn't like Jefferson was the only abolitionist who never freed his slaves.

Jefferson wasn't an abolitionist. He was the opposite.


I would not say that his position was the exact opposite of abolitionism. Abolitionists wanted to end slavery immediately. Jefferson believed that it would eventually fade away. He was probably correct in that. The people of the north banned slavery because it was not economically feasible. By the beginning of the Civil War, the border states had come to the same conclusion. They could make more money selling their slaves farther south than they could earn by employing them at home.
 
2012-12-03 01:20:50 PM  

Scott_Free: DamnYankees: Scott_Free: Show me a person who did more.

George Washington.

Bullshiat. Just a surveyor with money. Not even close to what Jefferson did Read your history.
\


Washington kept a rag tag army together when they kept wanting to quit. He managed to squash an attempted Military Coup by just one speech. He became the first President with NO example to follow and did a damn good job of it. And oh yeah, he manged to score a victory over the #1 military power of that century.


So shut up, biatch.
 
2012-12-03 01:28:34 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: 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.


What he said, but a slightly different explanation: the "demographic" you're talking about (hideous) is two different demographics, not one.

Most baby-boomers were not hippies, did not oppose the war unless they were in serious danger of being drafted, were not at Woodstock. I lived in San Francisco as a teenager and was surprised to discover that most people who grew up there during the sixties have never dropped acid, don't like rock 'n roll music, and have never protested against anything except paying full price for a domestic servant. It seemed absurd at the time, perhaps because my parents were hippies, but it makes perfect sense now.

I hate to type these words, but Nixon was right. The hippies were a tiny, tiny subset of a very large generation. They just sold a lot more copies of Life magazine than all the people the same age who were getting married, locking down their first jobs and not ever voting for anybody named McCarthy or McGovern.
 
2012-12-03 01:46:57 PM  
And re: Washington and Jefferson, consider this: whatever contemporaries thought of them, on some level they are the role models for all subsequent American politicians. If that's success, I'd like a large order of fail.
 
2012-12-03 02:11:01 PM  

david_gaithersburg: ///There is a giant conspiracy by the media and the educational system to attack democrats.


You should have seen how democrats were handled in the movie Lincoln. It was brutal. I don't know how Spielberg lives with himself.
 
2012-12-03 02:17:41 PM  

macadamnut: And re: Washington and Jefferson, consider this: whatever contemporaries thought of them, on some level they are the role models for all subsequent American politicians. If that's success, I'd like a large order of fail.


Here ya go.
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-03 02:19:12 PM  
They knew, all along, what was coming. Patrick Henry was at least honest about it (79 slaves):

Would any one believe that I am master of slaves of my own purchase! I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I will not, I cannot justify it. However culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my devoir to virtue, as to own the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and to lament the want of conforming to them--I believe a time will come when an opposition will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil--Every thing we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our day, if not, let us transmit to our descendants together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot, and an abhorrence for slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished for reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity, it is the furthest advance we can make toward justice. We owe to the purity of our religion to show that it is at variance with that law which warrants slavery.... ...I know not where to stop, I could say many things on this subject; a serious review of which gives a gloomy perspective to future times.

http://clio.missouristate.edu/FTMiller/Docs/henryslavery.htm

However, Franklin, as always, manages to eventually rise above it, both personally and intellectually (as a previous poster mentioned, playing poker with Dr. Franklin would have been `enlightening' - in all senses of the word).

http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/150408.pdf
 
2012-12-03 02:19:43 PM  

Triumph: david_gaithersburg: ///There is a giant conspiracy by the media and the educational system to attack democrats.

You should have seen how democrats were handled in the movie Lincoln. It was brutal. I don't know how Spielberg lives with himself.


I have not seen the movie yet, but it would be correct to handle them in a brutal manner.
 
2012-12-03 03:13:24 PM  
Thomas Jefferson liked his coffee the way he liked his women - hand picked from a field.
 
2012-12-03 03:46:17 PM  

ds615: If history records you as a "great man", then you were almost certainly a "bad man".
Truly, all the "great" people of history werehad dicks.


FTFY
 
2012-12-03 03:58:55 PM  
Jefferson's culpability for the continuation of slavery under his watch, his personal empathy for slaves and the system as a whole, and pretty much every subject related to the above will be debated for centuries. There's ample evidence to argue both points.

In this case, though, before getting all worked up over the subject, it's good to know that Paul Finkelman has made a pretty good living by being the guy most eager to deal ol' TJ a swift punch in the nads in any public forum he can muster. As a scholar, he's respectable, but Jefferson must have killed his great-grandpappy's dog or something, because the dude has a serious ax to grind against Jefferson, and never misses an opportunity to get in a couple of shots.

(Seriously, how many people wake up one morning and announce over the breakfast table, "Hmm, a new biography of John Doe is out. Time to write an OP-ED TO THE NEW YORK TIMES about what a douche John Doe was!")
 
2012-12-03 04:02:04 PM  
Thanks to reading questionable right-wing news sites, I now know that this article is a lie, and that Jefferson's "slave ownership" is a lie created by liberal historical revisionists trying to destroy America.
 
2012-12-03 04:07:41 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Things I've recently learned on Fark:

/All teachers are far right conservatives.
//All of the media is run by far right conservatives.
///There is a giant conspiracy by the media and the educational system to attack democrats.


Well it's true if you also consider many of today's leftist think that Karl Marx was a right wing Fox News reporter and the whole "history" thing is just something they can rewrite whenever it is convenient. So now that they have secured their political power, they want to discredit the Constitution by attacking the guy that wrote it. It's all pretty transparent.
 
2012-12-03 04:38:28 PM  

Jeet Kune D'oh: Jefferson's culpability for the continuation of slavery under his watch, his personal empathy for slaves and the system as a whole, and pretty much every subject related to the above will be debated for centuries. There's ample evidence to argue both points.

In this case, though, before getting all worked up over the subject, it's good to know that Paul Finkelman has made a pretty good living by being the guy most eager to deal ol' TJ a swift punch in the nads in any public forum he can muster. As a scholar, he's respectable, but Jefferson must have killed his great-grandpappy's dog or something, because the dude has a serious ax to grind against Jefferson, and never misses an opportunity to get in a couple of shots.

(Seriously, how many people wake up one morning and announce over the breakfast table, "Hmm, a new biography of John Doe is out. Time to write an OP-ED TO THE NEW YORK TIMES about what a douche John Doe was!")


There is more than enough evidence to understand that Jefferson and many others believed that slavery was a necessary evil. He believed that it would die on its own.

It is obvious to me that there are many different levels when it comes to slavery. You have abolitionists who wanted to end it immediately to people who believed that it should be supported and the slave trade re-instituted. There are many levels between.

There many ideas about what to do with the freed slaves. Some wanted them to stay in this country, others wanted to immediately ship them overseas. There were even people that believed in immediate freedom and gradual exportation.

In short, you cannot apply an easy label to any of the men in that period.


Jefferson was one of those who wanted it to go away, just not right away. Try sticking a label on that.
 
2012-12-03 07:20:59 PM  
Don't you wish we could bring him back to life and drive him through Compton?
 
2012-12-03 08:31:00 PM  

violentsalvation: I hate the newer nickels where he's looking right at you. Mind your own damn business, Tom.


I think it's bizarre that someone like that is on the currency.
 
2012-12-03 08:48:29 PM  
Jefferson was just like every other white person then. When they said "all men" they didn't mean black people. They weren't "men" or even people. They were less than that. So when Jefferson wrote his best words he wasn't thinking about Negroes. They simply didn't count.

Not far off of things you still hear in the South today: "We're not racist, that's just how it is."
 
2012-12-03 08:53:42 PM  
Jefferson would have been ruined financially and politically if he freed the slaves he inherited from his father-in-law. (Women couldn't own property, generally. Why does no one have a problem with Jefferson condoning the cruel institution of marriage?)

A political world without Jefferson probably means that Hamilton would have run amok, and our timeline would be similar to Russia's.

But I think Jefferson would have also been ruined psychologically. Sally Hemings was Martha Jefferson's half sister. They had a strong resemblance to each other and were very hot. Jefferson loved Martha deeply. He pretty much farked her to death and had serious guilt about it. He loved Sally Hemings, in turn. Hell, she looked like his wife with darker skin. Jefferson laid out his plan to Hemings when they were in Paris. She and her brother were aware that they could walk while in Paris. They both decided to return to the US as slaves. Jefferson and Hemings lived (discretely) as husband and wife for the rest of his life.

Flawed human is an oxymoron. Anyone can take things out of historical context and make Jefferson into a horrible monster. In an era when the founding fathers were trying to create and defend a new country, Jefferson laid the foundation for freedom. Would we be better off if he had freed his slaves, lost his land, and been exiled to bum-fark egypt as a broken man? No.
 
2012-12-03 09:20:19 PM  

edmo: Jefferson was just like every other white person then.


Wrong.

Several white people were staunch abolitionists. Several Americans, too. A couple of early Presidents & Vice Presidents along with it.

Adams was perhaps the first truly modern president, followed by Burr (as a vp) and then JQ Adams. These are people that wanted an end to slavery, equal rights for women and more. It's amazing, when you look at people who talk about how they were "men of their times" to think of all the people that were of our time back then. You also do a disservice to scores of men there. All for rhetoric. Ill-thought and poorly presented rhetoric.
 
2012-12-03 09:57:24 PM  
Mangoose

edmo: Jefferson was just like every other white person then.

Wrong.

Several white people were staunch abolitionists. Several Americans, too. A couple of early Presidents & Vice Presidents along with it.

Adams was perhaps the first truly modern president, followed by Burr (as a vp) and then JQ Adams. These are people that wanted an end to slavery, equal rights for women and more. It's amazing, when you look at people who talk about how they were "men of their times" to think of all the people that were of our time back then. You also do a disservice to scores of men there. All for rhetoric. Ill-thought and poorly presented rhetoric.


Why I mentioned Patrick Henry and Franklin. Franklin went from collecting considerable revenue by printing runaway slave notices in his papers and owning 2-3 house slaves, in his youth, to helping fund the first school for blacks, in Philadelphia, lending support to the first abolitionist society and the last article he had published, before his death, was a biting satire in which he likened white Christian captives of Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim ( a Muslim potentate on the Barbary coast - a `divan of Algiers') to slaves (giving all the standard reasons for continuing their slavery rather than releasing them).

http://sniggle.net/historicus.php

As an aside, Catton, in the first of his 4 volumes on the Civil War, The Coming Fury, mentions that John Brown, on his way from Ohio to the Kansas Territory, bought swords that had originally been purchased by a `society' that had, decades before, planned to use them in subjugating Canada - Franklin, apparently, had a hand in supporting those `patriots'. That Brown and his sons later put those blades to use along Pottawatomie Creek draws quite an odd line...
 
2012-12-03 10:04:02 PM  

Jeet Kune D'oh: There's ample evidence to argue both points


That's because Jefferson's views shifted over time. In his youth, he was a vocal abolitionist. Between 1780 and 1790 he reversed his views, mostly because his slaves (primarily his nail factory) were making him a shiatton of money.
 
2012-12-03 10:40:01 PM  
So this is the thread where the small come to tear down the great. Here it is, the great shiatstorm of our time.
 
2012-12-03 11:08:39 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Fistfights in Congress were common...


Got a cite for that? Because I recall researching this, years ago, and could only find two (one was actually a pretty vicious beating with a cane)
 
2012-12-03 11:56:35 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: "You used Hitler in an argument against X. According to Godwin's law, you have lost. X is true, and it is now enshrined forever".

What X is is irrelevant.

Does this help?


no not really. because that isn't Godwins law.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." That's all godwins law is. it doesn't mean you auto lose an argument and the other persons position is automatically true.
 
2012-12-04 01:00:12 AM  
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.

Not really. In the hippie example, 20 years passed between their idealism stage and their transformation into materialistic, selfish, bastards. That means they weren't really the same demographic as they had been. In Jefferson's case, he was practicing doublespeak, writing the Declaration and abolition-oriented correspondence publicly while simultaneously maximizing slave-owning for all he could get out of it. That simultenaity is what sets him apart.
 
2012-12-04 06:08:31 AM  
A lot of what Jefferson said about black people is true, at least in part. And keep in mind: he had a limited/contaminated sample.

Take a close look at the DRC before writing some half-wit retort. Examine the social experiment that is Liberia. The world is full of evidence that supports TJ's controversial views, and the counterarguments to his views are philosophical or idealistic claptrap.

I'd like to think that TJ had an unusually keen grasp of the obvious, and had too much spine to bow to the ill-informed opinions of his (often weepy/wimpy) contemporaries.
 
2012-12-04 06:21:00 AM  
Americans of today are anti-slavery except when they buy a $1500 iPhone for $600, or when they buy cans of peas for 3 for $1. Farking hypocrites.
 
2012-12-04 06:30:22 AM  

DamnYankees: NewportBarGuy: You guys want to know how important Thomas Jefferson was? Imagine if we didn't have him to battle against Alexander Hamilton while Washington presided over the Battle Royale that was the founding of this country.

Alexander Hamilton was basically right about everything. I'm not sure why this is good.


This. I've also heard that they held the Constitutional Convention when TJ was abroad on purpose, as they admired his eloquence, but the other founders didn't trust his judgement

/he also basically established the template for dirty politics, relentlessly accusing the beloved and high-minded Washington of being senile for rejecting his policies
 
2012-12-04 06:48:15 AM  

Marshal805: Scott_Free: DamnYankees: Scott_Free: Show me a person who did more.

George Washington.

Bullshiat. Just a surveyor with money. Not even close to what Jefferson did Read your history.
\

Washington kept a rag tag army together when they kept wanting to quit. He managed to squash an attempted Military Coup by just one speech. He became the first President with NO example to follow and did a damn good job of it. And oh yeah, he manged to score a victory over the #1 military power of that century.


So shut up, biatch.


Washington also established precedence for how the office of the President was to be run, managed a cabiet of competing ideologues without any major missteps, and knew when to leave. He was clearly the greatest of our founding fathers
 
2012-12-04 07:37:13 AM  
taco bell won't even take money with Jefferson on it
 
2012-12-04 08:01:39 AM  

Dear Jerk: Flawed human is an oxymoron.


No... I think rather it is a redundancy...
 
2012-12-04 09:39:29 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: ace in your face: Comparing morality in a different century is a little rediculous. Most of us wouldn't kill a person for being gay, or kill a black man for seducing a white woman, but a hundred years ago that shiat was pretty acceptable. In the reverse, I dont get called a slut for wearing a bathing suit but 100 years ago they would have arrested me. Times change. Jefferson was a defently moral man for the time.

And in the 1940s Hitler thought Jews were less than human, so that's ok too, right?


Considering the backlash from the world (and even german people) after the war regarding the death camps, I would say murdering millions of people was not socially acceptable at the time. Comparing thomas Jefferson to Hitler made me laugh though.
 
2012-12-04 10:29:59 AM  

ace in your face: Considering the backlash from the world (and even german people) after the war regarding the death camps, I would say murdering millions of people was not socially acceptable at the time. Comparing thomas Jefferson to Hitler made me laugh though.


If that were the case, there would also have been backlash against Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt for murdering millions of Europeans.

/try "murdering millions of your own loyal citizens over make-believe theories that are later proven false"
//there's a reason why the Nazi crimes committed against the Jews was considered worse than the crimes committed against the Communist POWs
///at least until our derranged postmodernist moral equivalence set in
 
2012-12-04 03:59:29 PM  
RobSeace
...it is a redundancy...

You win this round
 
Displayed 286 of 286 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report