Thomas Jefferson was quite the proverbial asshole

[angus]

TJ rocks.  One of my favorite presidents.  Washington remains my very favorite, but TJ is up there.  He wrote the declaration of independence, he was a leader in the enlightenment, he designed buildings, spoke several languages, dealt effectively with foreign adversaries, and orchestrated the Louisiana Purchase.  By all accounts he was a good father and husband to his wife with whom he made love and music regularly, and over whom he grieved appropriately when she died young. 

Let's be honest, if you had a hundred slaves, you'd probably sleep with one of them from time to time.  There's a thread about Socrates.  Socrates used to show up at parties with 12-year-old boys on his arm.  Everyone did back in those days.  Did that make him any less influential?  No.  That's just the way it was in those days.  Moral fashions change.  If you sleep with 12-year-old boys or 14-year-old girls nowadays, it's a crime.  Not so In Jefferson's America or Socrates' Athens.  You people need to stop taking yourselves so seriously. 

[homelycooking]

Everyone did back in those days.

That's not a legitimate defense. And if you're alluding, by analogy, to racial attitudes in Jefferson's day, it's also not true.

[Mechaman]

LOL at this thread.

Seriously guys, you are shocked that a rich English landowner from the 1700's was a racist rapist?  What, you expected these guys to be wearing Co-Exist t-shirts?

[Mechaman]

ALso, I don't think many of us would make the case that TJ was a very good guy or saintlike.  We just think that he's preferable to the Federalists, who were actually quite close to the literal definition of "Horrible People".  Seriously, nothing gets me laughing harder than seeing so-called "liberals" say they would support the Federalists if they lived in the old days.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

ALso, I don't think many of us would make the case that TJ was a very good guy or saintlike.  We just think that he's preferable to the Federalists, who were actually quite close to the literal definition of "Horrible People".  Seriously, nothing gets me laughing harder than seeing so-called "liberals" say they would support the Federalists if they lived in the old days.

At least I'm consistent!

[angus]

At least I'm consistent!

consistently confused.  How is an agrarian proto-libertarian a communist?  


homelycooking, one day some future society will be shocked by the fact that you use toilet paper to wipe your ass, then flush the shit down the toilet using more than a gallon of water.  You'll be a tree-killer and a water-waster.  Of course, I won't be shocked--I was here with you when that was the norm--and you and I will be rolling over in our graves, perhaps cringing, perhaps laughing, at some future generation's uptight attitudes.  Not that they're wrong, but hopefully one or two of them will be intelligent enough to put their own moral compasses aside just long enough to judge us by the standards of our day.  

[DemPGH]

In the spirit of what Angus is saying, I support a number of environmental organizations, and I've written to folks in government about my opposition to increased drilling. Yet what do I do? I've driven around a big old Chrysler gas guzzler until I recently purchased a hybrid. People in the future could really lambast me for my "carbon footprint."

Now, Old Tom. He's on record consistently demanding a complete and total political solution to slavery that leaves few, if any, problems. Was that an easy out for him? Who knows. It was optimistic at best, not feasible for 1800 at worst, and he acknowledges that the best way to end slavery is to instill in the young generation that the institution of slavery is unacceptable. He opposed haphazardly releasing slaves because it was open season on them to do so, as the later Dred Scott decision would prove.  TJ wanted an actual solution, as he explains in his letter to Edward Coles. You have to remember that slaves were lucky to even have names, and addressing, what do they do when free?- was crucial. 

Can instances be found of Jefferson acting in ways that today are incongruent with a sensible society? Sure. But churches used to burn witches too, and that institution is still alive.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

At least I'm consistent!

consistently confused.  How is an agrarian proto-libertarian a communist?  

The man would be disgusted with modern forms of capitalism and would want to set us back over 200 years in terms of our economic evolution. His calls for wealth redistribution and such were not  exactly "libertarian". As well, your response does not actually address my claims of consistency. I claimed consistency as a reply to what Mechaman claimed in which he was amused at so-called "liberals" supporting the Federalists. I am a conservative and no huge fan of the Democratic-Republicans myself. Thus I was "consistent" when compared with the liberals. Please, before calling me confused or anything of the sort, read what I say.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Now, Old Tom. He's on record consistently demanding a complete and total political solution to slavery that leaves few, if any, problems. Was that an easy out for him? Who knows. It was optimistic at best, not feasible for 1800 at worst, and he acknowledges that the best way to end slavery is to instill in the young generation that the institution of slavery is unacceptable. He opposed haphazardly releasing slaves because it was open season on them to do so, as the later Dred Scott decision would prove.  TJ wanted an actual solution, as he explains in his letter to Edward Coles. You have to remember that slaves were lucky to even have names, and addressing, what do they do when free?- was crucial. 

His 'actual solution' was to deport or kill them or institute something similar to the segregation that actually developed. He also leaned more and more into this realm over the course of his life, in direct contrast to Benjamin Franklin in the previous generation or Abraham Lincoln two or three more down the line. Not an uncommon set of positions for the time period, but by no means universal, and certainly not laudable as an example of moral foresight.

[angus]

At least I'm consistent!

consistently confused.  How is an agrarian proto-libertarian a communist?  

The man would be disgusted with modern forms of capitalism and would want to set us back over 200 years in terms of our economic evolution. His calls for wealth redistribution and such were not  exactly "libertarian". As well, your response does not actually address my claims of consistency. I claimed consistency as a reply to what Mechaman claimed in which he was amused at so-called "liberals" supporting the Federalists. I am a conservative and no huge fan of the Democratic-Republicans myself. Thus I was "consistent" when compared with the liberals. Please, before calling me confused or anything of the sort, read what I say.

yes, yes, you were consistent in the context of your reply. 

Still, Jefferson's argument that the French distribution of wealth was unjust doesn't exactly sound very communist to me.  On the contrary, the aristocracy had its own commune, and he was radically suggesting that the particular communism of the elite was unnatural.  (we could quibble over "natural rights" but I'm still awaiting an honest definition by the cheeky fellow who started that thread...  but that's another issue)  Anyway, Jefferson merely suggested that the last vestiges of feudalism didn't suit him.  (Good thing he didn't visit Poland!  If France bothered him, surely Poland would have killed him.)  It's not the same as what Sean Hannity is talking about when he goes on a tirade against "wealth redistribution."  Stop watching so much television. 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I haven't watched Sean Hannity in years. As for some background on my "communism" comment, again, the thread is your friend.

I never was a huge fan of the man for a variety of reasons (though I also had reasons to like him). This doesn't exactly subtract from the already insulting term I referred to him as, a Godless Communist.

I hope you meant that purely as an insult and not as a judgment of Jefferson's actual beliefs.

Insult, though he was quite left-wing compared to many at the time, and that's never good.

My argument "proving" him left-wing is later in the thread as well.

[DemPGH]

Now, Old Tom. He's on record consistently demanding a complete and total political solution to slavery that leaves few, if any, problems. Was that an easy out for him? Who knows. It was optimistic at best, not feasible for 1800 at worst, and he acknowledges that the best way to end slavery is to instill in the young generation that the institution of slavery is unacceptable. He opposed haphazardly releasing slaves because it was open season on them to do so, as the later Dred Scott decision would prove.  TJ wanted an actual solution, as he explains in his letter to Edward Coles. You have to remember that slaves were lucky to even have names, and addressing, what do they do when free?- was crucial. 

His 'actual solution' was to deport or kill them or institute something similar to the segregation that actually developed. He also leaned more and more into this realm over the course of his life, in direct contrast to Benjamin Franklin in the previous generation or Abraham Lincoln two or three more down the line. Not an uncommon set of positions for the time period, but by no means universal, and certainly not laudable as an example of moral foresight.

Where does this information come from, the book mentioned in the OP? That's one book by a guy trying to stir up the pot. Which is fine, don't get me wrong. But I don't seem to see Jefferson saying that stuff - he did not want to cut them loose when there was nowhere for them to go and nothing for them to do, and since it was open season on them in the South to do so.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Given my location, I'm obligated to defend Jefferson.  I am now defending Jefferson.

[Cory]

Insult, though he was quite left-wing compared to many at the time, and that's never good.

That still doesn't make him a "communist". Words have definitions, you shouldn't just use them as blanket-terms for anything vaguely leftist.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Given my location, I'm obligated to defend Jefferson.  I am now defending Jefferson.

Very eloquent and detailed defense we've got from you.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Having read up on Jefferson, I can say that the whole thing where he didn't give away his slaves wasn't his fault. All his property was confiscated as part of a state lottery in order to help pay his debts. He himself was disappointed, and Monticello itself wouldn't re-enter family hands for another 50 years.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Both parties were wrong. GOP wanted like Clay wanted to send blacks to Liberia. But because Lincoln died for blacks and preserved the union, GOP gets credit.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Both parties were wrong. Gop wanted like clay wanted to send blacks to liberia. But because lincoln died for blacks and preserved the union, gop gets credit.

Typically, when someone wants to make a point, they put their words in proper order, add preferred punctuation, and capitalize acronyms.