Thomas Jefferson

arbilad · Head Chef

Thomas Jefferson

arbilad · Head Chef

I found an interesting article on Jefferson's not manumitting his slaves upon his death. I think that this explains the matter rather nicely:
A good question. Thomas Jefferson did not free his own slaves for several reasons, we can surmise. First "freeing" slaves was not an easy task. The owner had to put up a bond to pay for any transgressions the slave commited on society while free. Also, slaves being considered property, they were subject to debt and property laws. If a owner of slaves was in massive debt, as was Thomas Jefferson to the tune of $100,000.00, freeing them was impossible. In fact once Jefferson died his creditors seized the slaves along with Monticello and sold them at auction. Thomas Jefferson also knew that his own fellow Viginians were not ready nor willing to support emancipation. Jefferson's many attempts at emancipating slaves in the state failed. Also he knew that it would not be humane to free a people into a society that did not want them, and who had their habits nurtured in slavery. Jefferson was a progressive. Many of his fellow Virginians felt he was a dangerous radical on slavery. Being progressive he knew that time and patience would eventually destroy the institution. It is amazing how modern Americans want simple solutions to complex social problems, i.e: slavery in the 18th century. We must remember 18th century Americans had no example of a multi-racial society with blacks and whites living together in a state of equality. Thomas Jefferson was very radical and progressive for his time (and ours to a certain extent) and to judge him by 21st century morals and standards is ahistorical and unscientific. Many modern Americans forget that Jefferson lived in a time where equality even between different economic classes of white men was considered dangerously radical.

This comes from this website.

arbilad · Head Chef

This is an interesting article.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

That article is a huge stretch and not entirely accurate.

Deism is the belief in a higher power, but a rejection of organized religion, even a rejection of the doctrine of the trinity, in the sense of Father, Son and Holy Ghost and a rejection of the possibility of supernatural occurrances such as divinity (including by implication rising from the dead). Jefferson did indeed reject those views, and considered himself a "unitarian" (which is analogous to deism). His "deism" is such that others accused him at the time of being an atheist, an inaccurate charge.

Jefferson was also specific in naming two deists as the bases for his view of religion, Joseph Priestly an English Unitarian who moved to America and Conyers Middleton a deist that resided in England.

Consider this letter to John Priestly by Jefferson.

"In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient [ancient] philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, . . . . I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark . . . that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.)

I believe it pretty much nails his stance on deism fairly well, especially the portion in which he chooses to purposely omit the question of divinity.

The author you quoted also makes the mistake of assuming that one cannot be a deist and unitarian simultaneously. Joseph Priestly was both and openly declared his deism. So he errs in that assumption.

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 09:56, 2006-10-31

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

The question of why Jefferson chose not to manumit slaves is somewhat problematic from the point of view of the author you chose. He states Jeffersons estates were in debt and therefore the slaves, being chattel would be needed to offset that debt. It raises the moral question. Are slaves good enough for him to love, sleep with and bear his children, but not good enough for the inalienable rights he spoke of in the Declaration of Independence? In other words, is debt sufficient reason to keep those under his care enslaved? Either rights are, or are not universal. Or does Jefferson speak of hypocrisy when he makes that statement? Or does he feel that slaves were a lesser form of man and thus not open to the rights given to white men?

Jefferson saw evil in slavery, I grant that, he even tried to prevent its spread to the western territories. But he did not see himself as relinquishing that evil from his own house and properties.

Years ago I read a book called The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800 I can't find it in my library presently, but I was able to find a book review of it that speaks to the key aspects.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n22_v48/ai_18914542

The matter of slavery and racism is complex. Of the inferiority of blacks Jefferson was certain; he so testified copiously in his Notes on the State of Virginia, first published in 1785. Much of what he said would become racist cliches: blacks had rhythm, they smelled bad, they were lazy and improvident. Most particularly, they were deficient in the capacity to reason. Some of his contemporaries, like Hamilton, argued that observable black characteristics were likely to be the result of circumstances, but Jefferson stoutly denied it. And for a man of a restlessly inquiring mind who was forever tinkering and experimenting, he was singularly resistant to educating his slaves to test the effect upon them. Indeed, as executor of the estate of Thaddeus Kosciusko, the Polish hero of the Revolutionary War, he refused to carry out the general's wish to purchase, manumit, and educate young blacks, and instead diverted the allocated funds to other purposes. Until the civil-rights movement of the 1960s awakened their racial consciousness, historians simply ignored the whole subject. Since then, a number of scholarly studies have provided ample documentation, and O'Brien has drawn heavily from these works.

Jefferson's devotees could scarcely ignore the other half of the matter, his ownership and exploitation of the labor of his slaves, but they routinely put the best face on it. He treated them with great humanity, they said; Dumas Malone described Jefferson's homecoming from Paris in 1789 as a wildly jubilant time for the slaves, welcoming their beloved master. O'Brien paints a different picture. Over time at least forty of Jefferson's slaves tried to escape, and Jefferson employed a number of brutal overseers, regarding the cruelest of whom, Gabriel Lilly, he said it would be impossible to find "a man who fulfills my purposes better."

I really don't like Jefferson all that much, and prefer Hamilton (who also had his weaknesses) in most cases.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

You may not like him. Was he flawed. Certainly as we all are, as were all the founding fathers. I find the following rather interesting:

When I [Ezra Taft Benson]became President of the Twelve and Spencer W. Kimball became President of the Church, we met, just the two of us, every week after our Thursday meetings in the temple, just to be sure that things were properly coordinated between the Twelve and the First Presidency. After one of those first meetings, we talked about the many sacred documents in some of the older temples. St. George was mentioned in particular because St. George is our oldest temple in Utah. I had a stake conference down there about that time, and it was agreed that I would go into the archives -- the walk-in vault -- of that great temple and review the sacred documents that were there. We were planning for the remodeling and renovating of the St. George Temple and thought that the records might possibly be moved to Salt Lake for safekeeping. And there in the St. George Temple I saw what I had always hoped and prayed that someday I would see. Ever since I returned as a humble missionary and first learned that the Founding Fathers had appeared in that temple, I wanted to see the record. And I saw the record. They did appear to Wilford Woodruff twice and asked why the work hadn't been done for them. They had founded this country and the Constitution of this land, and they had been true to those principles. Later the work was done for them.

In the archives of the temple, I saw in a book, in bold handwriting, the names of the Founding Fathers and others, including Columbus and other great Americans, for whom the work had been done in the house of the Lord. This is all one great program on both sides of the veil. We are fortunate to be engaged in it on this side of the veil. I think the Lord expects us to take an active part in preserving the Constitution and our freedom.

The Founding Fathers of this nation, those great men, appeared within those sacred walls of the St. George Temple and had their vicarious work done for them. President Wilford Woodruff spoke of it in these words: "Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, `You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.'"

After he became President of the Church, President Wilford Woodruff declared that "those men who laid the foundation of this American government were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits [and] were inspired of the Lord."

The temple work for the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers has been done. All these appeared to Wilford Woodruff when he was president of the St. George Temple. President George Washington was ordained a high priest at that time. You will also be interested to know that, according to Wilford Woodruff's journal, John Wesley, Benjamin Franklin, and Christopher Columbus were also ordained high priests at that time. When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it. Yes, with Lincoln I say: "To add brightness to the sun or glory to the name of Washington is . . . impossible. Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce the name and in its deathless splendor, leave it shining on."

Source: Benson, Ezra Taft, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988. 602 - 604.

Interesting quote: "When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it."

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 12:44, 2006-10-31

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Here's Wilford Woodruff specifically from the Conference Report April 1898: "I am going to bear my testimony to this assembly, if I never do it again in my life, that those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits, not wicked men."

Well, I don't know about the rest of you but I'll take Wilford Woodruff and Ezra Taft Benson over modern DNA high probability and revisionist history any day.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

"When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it."

Well, if you are ignorant of history and buy into American myths, its easy to say those things. Personally, given the knowledge we have today, versus the knowledge held by the quotation, I would gladly stand before God and recall the hypocrisy of Jefferson when he had his slaves beaten for seeking freedom.

If some of the founders appeared and asked to have their work done, then perhaps they repented of their past, their slave holding, in some cases assaults, in others adultry, in others cruelty and so on. One is not sure of the circumstances. Frankly anyone can appear, with dispensation from the Lord, before our apostles and prophets and request their work be done. Perhaps, in spite of their character, they accomplished a great thing that helped bring about this dispensation, so the Lord gave them their dispensation to do so. It doesn't mean they weren't wrong or small minded, as the historical evidence so clearly shows. And I mean by their standards, and not our own (I think projecting our own times is a horrible sin for historians).

You sir, have punted with that quote.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

salesortonscom wrote:

Here's Wilford Woodruff specifically from the Conference Report April 1898: "I am going to bear my testimony to this assembly, if I never do it again in my life, that those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits, not wicked men."

Well, I don't know about the rest of you but I'll take Wilford Woodruff and Ezra Taft Benson over modern DNA high probability and revisionist history any day.

I wouldn't. In fact I would say catagorically that Wilford Woodruff and Ezra Taft Bension, as uber patriots, did not specificaly state that those issues did not come about. There is a certain difference between a choice spirit and a wicked man. They may have been choice spirits. They may have not been irredeemable men. But they were men who were not necessarily righteous in their actions, either through their adultry (and I am not talking simply of Jefferson, but other founding fathers such as Hamilton who were notorious adulterers), through their slave holdings (which most in that day thought was wrong), or their general dealings. I don't paint all with the same broad brush of misdeeds as the quote seems to for their supposed righteousness, but in all honesty there is just too much evidence against the idea that these were simply atruistic righteous men. That is a Disney movie, not reality.

arbilad · Head Chef

Jeffrey, I'd take the word of a prophet anyday over whatever history books said. Don't forget that when Joseph Smith started talking about finding records written on gold plates, he was laughed to scorn, because no one knew of such a thing at that time.
It doesn't matter what historical knowledge he may or may not have had.
Actually, I'd say his historical knowledge is better. We have a lot of revisionist history nowadays. For instance, the charges of adultery against Jefferson are unproven. By your own admission, the worst anyone has been able to say about him is that it is "likely". I don't look at the evidence in the same way.
Also, it is a very true statement that "by their fruits ye shall know them". The Declaration of Independence, for instance, remains to this day one of the greatest written works. It expresses in a beautiful manner our God given rights, for instance. The character assasination executed on the memories of the Founding Fathers causes me grief. They, as was mentioned in the quotes, were great men.
But, Jeffrey, totally apart from the question of whether your claims hold water (and there is plenty of evidence that they do not), a prophet of the Lord has said that he was a great man. That's high praise from a very reliable source in my book. We've been told that, in the last days, even the very elect will be deceived. There are very intelligent people engaged in this character assasination. They are doing their best to put forth compelling evidence. The best source for truth is the Lord. So when it comes right down to it, if it was said by a GA that they were great men, I'd trust that even if somehow they were able to send back a video recorder in time and record Jefferson in the act. Such things can be faked. The word of God is reliable.
If I remember correctly, the historical record the Jews have of Jesus is less than flattering. But we know through reliable sources (prophets of God) that he was a perfect man.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

I have always viewed Jefferson as a light-weight among the Founding Fathers. He gets a lot of credit, mostly because he was the one to write the Declaration. But I believe that was mostly due to the fact that he was good at turning a phrase. He spent the Revolutionary War as a legislator and then governor of Virginia. He was not involved in the Constitutional Convention, or in the ratification debate afterwards. As President, I will give him credit for the Louisiana Purchase, and for the successful Barbary War.

So I don't think he is in the same league as Madison or Hamilton or Washington. But he was a part of that marvelous group of men, and deserves our thanks and appreciation for the role that he did play.

Now, I think it is naive to think they were all paragons of virtue at all times (except Washington--I think he always was). Hamilton had affairs; Franklin had illegitimate children. I tend to think that Jefferson may have sought comfort in his lonely widower state from a slave woman who was likely his wife's half sister! I agree that to our present sensibilities this is abominable. I think the men of the 1700s saw the matter rather differently. I am not willing to toss the Founding Fathers overboard for their humanity. We recognize Joseph Smith as a great and inspired man, and there are things in his history that raise some eyebrows as well.

-- Edited by fear of shiz at 14:12, 2006-10-31

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

One more thing:

James Madison ROCKS!

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Well Jeff,

Is it your contention that a prophet of the Lord has been decieved by a patriotic view of history and was allowed to perpetuate this deception in General Conference? If so, I would say that's a pretty bold position to take. One I would never choose, even as an uber patriot myself. Do you feel that your view of these men puts you in direct conflict with God's prophet? Are we naive or misguided in accepting the words of the Lord's prophet as delivered in Conference? What does it mean when a prophet bears testimony of something?

Either a prophet and a president of the quorum of the 12 who later became the prophet and who we sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator were right in their assessment or they were wrong. I just want to nail this down so that I understand you correctly. Were they right or were they wrong in saying what they said? If a prophet bearing testimony in general conference is wrong, then what is right?
-- Edited by salesortonscom at 14:43, 2006-10-31

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 14:47, 2006-10-31

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I find more than a little consternation in people passing judgement on the actions or attitudes of those who have been dead for generations of time. In the case of Jefferson, it has been what, well over 150, 175 years or more?

Who in the world are we to stand on our "enlightened" pedestals and villify some person of celebrity status from the past? Of course they had imperfections and clearly did things that are not in accordance with the restored gospel at times. And it is only too easy to point out that they don't pass the so-called "standards" of modern political correctness.

Yet, we seem to forget those in modern politics that would -- in any other arena -- be labeled sexual predators or similar reprobates... I can think of a couple that should in no way be considered for hero worship... John F. Kennedy is one (not only a well known and documented adulterer with many women, but he nearly caused a nuclear war playing chicken with Kruschev) but his #1 fan, Slick Willie, William Jefferson Clinton.

Oh, it is soooo easy to say that had we lived back in the early days of our nation, or even in the days leading up to or during the Civil War, that we would have taken the high road.

The point of the matter is, you and I don't know that. We like to think we would behave in the same "enlightened" manner as we do today. But, we don't know if we would have taken the "moral high ground" of being an abolitionist, for example, because circumstances and situations would have been different back then. Particularly depending on where you lived. We don't know how we would have reacted to the Indians (er... Native Americans). We don't know how we would have even reacted to those strange people of that strange religion founded by Joe Smith...

So, gentlemen, while you are entitled to your opinions, please let facts be the center of discussion here and not the point-counterpoint argument of your personal preferences. Okay?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Cat Herder wrote:

So, gentlemen, while you are entitled to your opinions, please let facts be the center of discussion here and not the point-counterpoint argument of your personal preferences. Okay?

The fact as I see it is that a prophet of God said these were choice spirits, not wicked men. We can play the lawyer weasil word game and say that he specifically didn't mention this or that in detail. The fact is that a prophet of God said it in conference. His words seem pretty clear to me. I always was told that there are wicked people and righteous people. There is no fence sitting. If the prophet said they were not wicked men then they must be righteous. There is no middle ground with the Lord.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

Jeffrey, I'd take the word of a prophet anyday over whatever history books said. Don't forget that when Joseph Smith started talking about finding records written on gold plates, he was laughed to scorn, because no one knew of such a thing at that time.
It doesn't matter what historical knowledge he may or may not have had.
Actually, I'd say his historical knowledge is better. We have a lot of revisionist history nowadays. For instance, the charges of adultery against Jefferson are unproven. By your own admission, the worst anyone has been able to say about him is that it is "likely". I don't look at the evidence in the same way.
Also, it is a very true statement that "by their fruits ye shall know them". The Declaration of Independence, for instance, remains to this day one of the greatest written works. It expresses in a beautiful manner our God given rights, for instance. The character assasination executed on the memories of the Founding Fathers causes me grief. They, as was mentioned in the quotes, were great men.
But, Jeffrey, totally apart from the question of whether your claims hold water (and there is plenty of evidence that they do not), a prophet of the Lord has said that he was a great man. That's high praise from a very reliable source in my book. We've been told that, in the last days, even the very elect will be deceived. There are very intelligent people engaged in this character assasination. They are doing their best to put forth compelling evidence. The best source for truth is the Lord. So when it comes right down to it, if it was said by a GA that they were great men, I'd trust that even if somehow they were able to send back a video recorder in time and record Jefferson in the act. Such things can be faked. The word of God is reliable.
If I remember correctly, the historical record the Jews have of Jesus is less than flattering. But we know through reliable sources (prophets of God) that he was a perfect man.

Two things you had better note

1-I have not contradicted the prophets and apostles, however I have perhaps given you a different perspective on your own interpretation.

2-I take it that you fully endorse Brigham Youngs stance on "moon men"?

"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening called the moon? ...when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain," (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 271).

You seem to be of the mind that somehow Thomas Jefferson was justified or that the mere generalized statement by an apostle or prophet, an apostle or prophet that by the way is very patriotic, an apostle or prophet that may not have all the facts, states an opinion in regards to what they feel about they American founding fathers.

It was not until the 1960's that civil rights brought out the idea that maybe the US wasn't so nice in some cases, and that maybe the founding fathers did not create the US within the sphere of an immaculate conception. Heavenly Fathers gives us brains so that we may think and discern, not so that we make every opinion held by those leaders in the past, that is not doctrine, as doctrine.

<<quote>>It doesn't matter what historical knowledge he may or may not have had.
Actually, I'd say his historical knowledge is better. <<unquote>>

It was significantly worse, and history is always being revised. Joseph Smith without a doubt will be remembered as one of histories greatest revisionists. So being a revisionist isn't in and of itself incorrect. You might want to consider those issues before you dogmatically assume every opinion is doctrine and therefore unchangeable.

<<quote>>But, Jeffrey, totally apart from the question of whether your claims hold water (and there is plenty of evidence that they do not), a prophet of the Lord has said that he was a great man. That's high praise from a very reliable source in my book. We've been told that, in the last days, even the very elect will be deceived. There are very intelligent people engaged in this character assasination. They are doing their best to put forth compelling evidence. The best source for truth is the Lord. So when it comes right down to it, if it was said by a GA that they were great men, I'd trust that even if somehow they were able to send back a video recorder in time and record Jefferson in the act. Such things can be faked. The word of God is reliable.<<unquote>>

There is no reliable counter evidence, in fact the preponderance of the reliable evidence (regardless of your vague plenty of evidence counter) supports the stance I have taken.

A prophet of the Lord can venture historical opinion, and can state that if we question the founding fathers that somehow we will be judged. But truth was never character assassination, it is simply truth. And equating the historical opinion of a prophet and apostle as the doctrine of God is, well, to say the least outrageous.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

A prophet of the Lord can venture historical opinion, and can state that if we question the founding fathers that somehow we will be judged. But truth was never character assassination, it is simply truth. And equating the historical opinion of a prophet and apostle as the doctrine of God is, well, to say the least outrageous.

I think we are a bit beyond opinion Jeff when a prophet of God in conference says: "I am going to bear my testimony to this assembly, if I never do it again in my life, that those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits, not wicked men."

Was it opinion or did he not say "I am going to bear my testimony to this assembly"? Hmmmm.... The fact is that he did not say, "I am going to give my opinion to this assembly" or "I am going to give my theorie to this assembly" or "I am going to share some ideas or speculation with this assembly". When I weigh the testimony of a prophet given in conference against "evidence supports" or "evidence points" or "the evidence seems to conclude", the Prophet wins hands down.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Cat Herder wrote:

I find more than a little consternation in people passing judgement on the actions or attitudes of those who have been dead for generations of time. In the case of Jefferson, it has been what, well over 150, 175 years or more?

Who in the world are we to stand on our "enlightened" pedestals and villify some person of celebrity status from the past? Of course they had imperfections and clearly did things that are not in accordance with the restored gospel at times. And it is only too easy to point out that they don't pass the so-called "standards" of modern political correctness.

Yet, we seem to forget those in modern politics that would -- in any other arena -- be labeled sexual predators or similar reprobates... I can think of a couple that should in no way be considered for hero worship... John F. Kennedy is one (not only a well known and documented adulterer with many women, but he nearly caused a nuclear war playing chicken with Kruschev) but his #1 fan, Slick Willie, William Jefferson Clinton.

Oh, it is soooo easy to say that had we lived back in the early days of our nation, or even in the days leading up to or during the Civil War, that we would have taken the high road.

The point of the matter is, you and I don't know that. We like to think we would behave in the same "enlightened" manner as we do today. But, we don't know if we would have taken the "moral high ground" of being an abolitionist, for example, because circumstances and situations would have been different back then. Particularly depending on where you lived. We don't know how we would have reacted to the Indians (er... Native Americans). We don't know how we would have even reacted to those strange people of that strange religion founded by Joe Smith...

So, gentlemen, while you are entitled to your opinions, please let facts be the center of discussion here and not the point-counterpoint argument of your personal preferences. Okay?

I would never judge historical figures by todays standards, it simply cannot be done properly. But I do try to review what was done then by the standards of that day. For instance, Jefferson did speak of the evil of slavery, he was very eloquent about it, and then made sure his slaves whistled when they brought his food (in that way they couldn't steal a bite themselves). By the standards of the day, Jefferson was "not" living within what someone like Adams would call a "proper" lifestyle. Adams and indeed even Franklin spoke vigourously against slavery, and felt (rightfully so) that slavery would eventually tear the country apart. Right after the constitutional convention, Franklin had some Quaker friends actually challenge the idea of slavery in the south. It nearly tore the government apart and it was agreed that such a thing should be tabled. Had they not tabled it, and fought it out, we might have avoided that terrible civil war.

When I look at Jefferson, I see what others around him, and he himself, would have used as judgement for their actions. Hypocrisy was probably a greater oversight then, than even today, at least when looking at Jefferson and Hamilton, and even Washington (to a limited extent though I consider him one of the greatest Americans after Joseph Smith).

So its not really the enlightened easy chair of the 21st century, but a more critical view based on the morality of the late 18th century, that I look at these things. I have less problems with Ceaser and his actions in Gaul than I do with Jefferson, because Ceasers circumstances and knowledge were that some were meant to be slaves and some were meant to be "wiped out" and some were meant to conquer. He was very straightforward about it, and did not speak against it one day, and do it the next. Jefferson however did.

I think the clearest moral meaning can be seen in the dichotomy of the two men, Jefferson and Washington. Washington manumitted the slaves, of which he had no progenity, Jefferson did not, of which there is ample evidence that these were of his blood.

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 16:05, 2006-10-31

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

salesortonscom wrote:

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

A prophet of the Lord can venture historical opinion, and can state that if we question the founding fathers that somehow we will be judged. But truth was never character assassination, it is simply truth. And equating the historical opinion of a prophet and apostle as the doctrine of God is, well, to say the least outrageous.

I think we are a bit beyond opinion Jeff when a prophet of God in conference says: "I am going to bear my testimony to this assembly, if I never do it again in my life, that those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits, not wicked men."

Was it opinion or did he not say "I am going to bear my testimony to this assembly"? Hmmmm.... The fact is that he did not say, "I am going to give my opinion to this assembly" or "I am going to give my theorie to this assembly" or "I am going to share some ideas or speculation with this assembly". When I weigh the testimony of a prophet given in conference against "evidence supports" or "evidence points" or "the evidence seems to conclude", the Prophet wins hands down.

I think that we are of opinion. They might have been the best spirits of heaven, but then so was King David. It does not excuse them from the proclivities of the flesh or the breaking of moral codes that they expect others to live by.

I would state that he is correct that they were some of the best spirits of men. The premortal life provides for this and I have alluded to it earlier. But it does not, in anyway mean they did not practice hypocrisy in this life, that they were not sinful in this life, that they did indeed do the wrong things, in this life, within the moral context which they themselves created.

A wicked man is also not the same as a man that commits wicked deeds due to a weakness of the flesh either.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

salesortonscom wrote:

Well Jeff,

Is it your contention that a prophet of the Lord has been decieved by a patriotic view of history and was allowed to perpetuate this deception in General Conference? If so, I would say that's a pretty bold position to take. One I would never choose, even as an uber patriot myself. Do you feel that your view of these men puts you in direct conflict with God's prophet? Are we naive or misguided in accepting the words of the Lord's prophet as delivered in Conference? What does it mean when a prophet bears testimony of something?

Either a prophet and a president of the quorum of the 12 who later became the prophet and who we sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator were right in their assessment or they were wrong. I just want to nail this down so that I understand you correctly. Were they right or were they wrong in saying what they said? If a prophet bearing testimony in general conference is wrong, then what is right?
-- Edited by salesortonscom at 14:43, 2006-10-31

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 14:47, 2006-10-31

Was the prophet of the Lord deceived? Can an apostle or prophet be deceived by moments of passionate patriotism? Or moments of exuberance regarding the moon?

Perhaps.

My view does not put me in direct conflict with the prophets (again you punt on the third down ). Are we naive to accept the Lords word in conference? Hardly, but then conference has had some interesting stances and talks in the history of the church now hasn't it. Is every talk the purest of doctrinal revelation or simply warning or good advice? Is every conference added to the Doctrine and Covenants as a different section? Where do opinion and doctrine converge or diverge? I could also testify that the founders of this nation were choice spirits and not wicked men, however I could not testify that some did not carry out wicked deeds, and I could not testify that some did not break the very covenants that they made. Was King David a wicked man or a tragic great man that committed a wicked or wicked deeds? Was Samuel the prophet somehow deceived by a young David when he annointed him king? I think that is an interesting question.

So in conclusion, I don't see myself as being pitted against the prophets and apostles. Indeed, I don't see, in that statement presented a counter to my stance on Jefferson. What to you is an "either or" to me is quite different, since the key points you have raised do not really counter what I have said.

By the way, what do you think of those moon men?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

By the way, what do you think of those moon men?

I thought we were talking about Jefferson and the founding fathers but OK I will bite. I ask you what do you think of those "sun men"? What about those "star men"? Maybe I'm reading this differently or out of context.

OK now I'm going to punt again and call a penalty for holding on the play. I'm also throwing a flag for a late hit and unneccessary roughness.

Is there any historical figure that you can't or won't tear down? Was that a punt or kick off? Your football metaphores have me confused.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

I don't tear them down, unless you really believe things like Washington never told a lie, or chopped down a cherry tree, or so forth.

I don't think as much of Jefferson as I do some of the less sung heroes of the revolution. To me Adams was a man of much higher virture and stature. Both intelligent and brave and sometimes going against the grain. He vigourously defended the soldiers of the Boston Massacre while cousin Sam was calling them vicious killers. He was a masterful politician that was a nexus into getting Washington involved. Without Washington there would have been no war, and Adams saw the qualities in the man that a revolution needed. There were other retired British generals, they might even have been better qualified, but Adams knew, intellectually and instinctively that Washington was what was needed.

Madison as the father of our Constituion does indeed rock beyond any question of a doubt.

Hamilton was a genius beyond compare financially and brought the US out of its economic funk and debt. He didn't decry other people their adultery either, he wouldn't given his own proclivity with the ladies (and he was a ladies man).

I could go down various lists and show weaknesses and strengths. My favorite is Washington for integrity and ability to galvanize a nation, Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt are the closest comparisons I can come up with. But Washington speaks for me when he cut off communication with Jefferson because of Jeffersons tactics and attacks. Something I mentioned earlier but must have been overlooked by so many here.

I don't discount the genius of Jefferson, I just question his moral strength in regard to the values he professed.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Right after the constitutional convention, Franklin had some Quaker friends actually challenge the idea of slavery in the south. It nearly tore the government apart and it was agreed that such a thing should be tabled. Had they not tabled it, and fought it out, we might have avoided that terrible civil war.

No, we would have fought it 80 years earlier, and it would have destroyed us as an independent nation. We would have been easy pickings for the British to come back in, or for France or Spain to do so. The Founders were right to kick that one down the road a bit. If the abolitionists hadn't been such warmongers and fanatics, then the whole issue would probably have been resolved peacably by 1900. Just the opinion of one southerner.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Maybe, maybe not. Consider that slavery didn't really have its hold on the nation because it wasn't considered that efficient at the time, this was prior to the cotton gin and unlike the 1850's, cotton wasn't 80+% of our exports.

The British did consider us easy pickings. Even after the treaty they kept their armed forces in forts along the frontier and still impressed our sailors and more to the point, armed the indians fighting us. It took the war of 1812 to resolve the issue. Slavery would not, in my view have made that much of a different, it hadn't fully inculcated itself into southern society (though I can also argue that the US, until the civil war since before the formation of a nation, seemed almost destined to fall apart, its entire history was shaken by one form of secession or another.

I think the argument is very open and plausible either way.

Would slavery have resolved itself peacefully by 1900? It certainly did by then in Brazil (1889), however Brazil was under an emperor that could force or shepard such an issue through.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

England and Europe hold a fair degree of culpability in the issue of slavery in the early U.S. Oh sure, they had outlawed it in their lands, but that didn't stop them from supporting the triangle trade in various fashions, now did it?

We were easy pickin's for any European power. The ostensible reason we were not overcome by them was because of the cost involved. The major powers (England, France, Spain) had wasted their treasuries and man power on fighting each other off and on for a couple centuries, and it was getting worse with the rise to power of Napoleon. Other than that, it was not an easy undertaking to conduct a major military campaign half way around the world back then, logistics wise or command structure wise. War of 1812 is an example of both these concepts. Most of the British military was tied up fighting Napoleon, and it wasn't until late in the show that some of those units had been freed up to fight in America. They weren't supplied well and were overconfident and got their butts kicked as a result at New Orleans.

The real reason we were not overcome was due to the protection of The Lord. This would seem to indicate that a majority (or perhaps super majority) of the people in the nation were living a minimum level of righteousness to receive that blessing. How were they living in relation to the light of the gospel they had? Slavery was not against the laws of the land, hence for a man to own slaves would not have been against the laws of God. All that we should then be concerned about was if he treated the slaves and servants he had well and not abusively. I think the fact is that for the most part, people did, even if they did not free them or formally educate them. Each slave represented a substantial initial and ongoing capital investment of the owner, and it was in his best interest to take care of them, keep them healthy and happy. As I've understood it, it wasn't until later decades and generation(s) that the level of abusive treatment became an overriding need to abolish slavery.

For all the talk about Jefferson and his slaves and his therefore seemingly hypocritic lifestyle vs. idealistic views, perhaps it would be good to remember that he was basically a failure in regards to business and investments. Slaves were a real asset and represented capital. How did he acquire them? I think some were inherited, and some were purchased, and others were born to slaves he held. His not freeing them before his death (and not doing so in his will) probably constitutes nothing more than the leveraging of that asset for all he could from a financial standpoint. Which would have been worse if you want to maintain the air of being a successful man economically, particularly as a political celebrity and former president? Sell off your slaves for the onetime inflow of cash, or keep them where you can still make sure they are taken care of and give the pretense of doing well and thereby leveraging that facade to get new "investors" cash inflows... Unfortunately, he ended up doing both in the end. Since his slaves were not emancipated upon his death, they ended up being divided up amongst his heirs as he had essentially no other estate to pass on.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

<<<As I've understood it, it wasn't until later decades and generation(s) that the level of abusive treatment became an overriding need to abolish slavery.>>>

Ah, yes, the myth of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Sure, there were undoubtedly instances of poor treatment, and I will not defend the institution as a whole. It was an evil that needed to be removed. But I doubt that the need to take care of the "substantial initial and ongoing capital investment of the owner" would have changed in later decades. Overall, I imagine that most slave-owners did their best to be as humane as possible.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

I wouldn't argue the point of Europe holding equal culpability, its part of the triangle of trade that helped drive slavery.

Regarding the War of 1812, I see it as a continuation of the Revolutionary War. And like the Revolutionary War, we lost almost every battle, except the last (look up the Blandensburg races in Maryland, the Brits suffered from heat exhaustion chasing American troops who cut and run).

The Battle of New Orleans was certainly a question of overconfidence, and a question of lack of confidence in the military down there. Luckily terrain was on our side (everyone thought Jackson - a historical figure I despise for what he did to the nation and its politics - was a dead man walking). After the battle Jackson could do almost no wrong in the eyes of the people. But thats another story. If you look to my essay "before there was Joseph", the War of 1812 plays a part in that essay. The Lord provided and was provident in the provision of securing our nation.

For all the talk about Jefferson and his slaves and his therefore seemingly hypocritic lifestyle vs. idealistic views, perhaps it would be good to remember that he was basically a failure in regards to business and investments. Slaves were a real asset and represented capital. How did he acquire them? I think some were inherited, and some were purchased, and others were born to slaves he held. His not freeing them before his death (and not doing so in his will) probably constitutes nothing more than the leveraging of that asset for all he could from a financial standpoint. Which would have been worse if you want to maintain the air of being a successful man economically, particularly as a political celebrity and former president? Sell off your slaves for the onetime inflow of cash, or keep them where you can still make sure they are taken care of and give the pretense of doing well and thereby leveraging that facade to get new "investors" cash inflows... Unfortunately, he ended up doing both in the end. Since his slaves were not emancipated upon his death, they ended up being divided up amongst his heirs as he had essentially no other estate to pass on.

That I have to disagree with with. I would have to counter that even when acting as executor of a will for others, he in essence broke the law and rather than manumit slaves and educate them he had them sold (see my earlier post regarding Polish general Kosuisko). It wasn't a business issue on that point. So I cannot except the dire business straits as being the reason his moral assertions were undermined. I would be interested in seeing Jeffersons Last Will and Testament and how his business failings may have undermined a desire for the freedom of his slaves. It would be a good counter to his actions as executor to General Kosuisko.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

<<<As I've understood it, it wasn't until later decades and generation(s) that the level of abusive treatment became an overriding need to abolish slavery.>>>

Ah, yes, the myth of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Sure, there were undoubtedly instances of poor treatment, and I will not defend the institution as a whole. It was an evil that needed to be removed. But I doubt that the need to take care of the "substantial initial and ongoing capital investment of the owner" would have changed in later decades. Overall, I imagine that most slave-owners did their best to be as humane as possible.

I have debated both sides of the slavery issue. There are some strong argument of the time contextually. One was that people in the manufacturing north were actually treated worse than slaves, and there is some truth in that. Even Karl Marx was brought into the argument during the 1850's. Its an interesting argument.

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 07:55, 2006-11-01

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

...when acting as executor of a will for others, he in essence broke the law and rather than manumit slaves and educate them he had them sold (see my earlier post regarding Polish general Kosuisko).

How exactly did he break the law by not manumitting and educating Kosuisko's slaves as executor of his will? Probate was not as strict in those days is it is today, perhaps. As I have understood it, an executor is responsible for settling the affairs and debts of the deceased prior to settling the estate, and if that means selling assets before fulfilling the wishes of the deceased, then the executor is fulfilling the legal role. Also, the executor / executrix, even today, can extract whatever sum or fee for his / her service in settling the estate that he / she feels is warranted prior to disbursement of the assets of the estate. Today, that is kept under watch by the probate judge and court to keep it reasonable, but if you have a law firm or lawyer act as your executor, you can dang well expect them to take a nice fee in addition to the fees charged for helping you though the probate process.

I know. We saw the new law firm of the lawyer who had represented my mother who was executrix of my father's will try to do this after said lawyer left the new firm mid-stream in the probate process of my brother acting as the executor of my mother's will and estate. When we retained the man for after my father died, it was very much a straight forward here are your fees for my assistance. Then, when we retained him again after my mother died, he was with a new firm and we thought it would be the same, because that was what he had indicated initially. Well, he moved out of state and left the firm mid stream, and the firm tried to reneg on the agreement and charge us an exorbitant amount for having actually done nothing and even holding up the probate process.

Anyway, is it dealing honestly with our fellow man? Was Jefferson's selling of the slaves dealing honestly? I don't know. It has the appearance of not being so, but may have been perfectly legal.

I should probably shut up, as I do not really know much of any the facts surrounding Jefferson... but, as always, I am always willing to show my sheer brilliance or utter ignorance by opening mouth and inserting both feet up to the knees.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Anyway, is it dealing honestly with our fellow man? Was Jefferson's selling of the slaves dealing honestly? I don't know. It has the appearance of not being so, but may have been perfectly legal.

There is the honesty of the pharisees, stating one thing and doing another.

My issue is with the two sides of the mouth with which he speaks.

And common law strictly adheres to the idea of carrying out the wishes of the executor unless it decreed some other requirement is made (either financial debt and so on), Jefferson purposely, through his own actions decided educating and manumitting slaves. Kosciusko was not poor when he died, he had a retirement and land with no debt. His serfs in Poland were manumitted, and the cash from his sold estates was without debt attached. His will and desire was to educate and manumit black men.

Jefferson put the cash to other use, not the desire of the deceased.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

I should probably shut up, as I do not really know much of any the facts surrounding Jefferson... but, as always, I am always willing to show my sheer brilliance or utter ignorance by opening mouth and inserting both feet up to the knees.

How can a hypothesis be tested if no one questions it. Much of the historic lies in the critical thinking of logic applied to known facts rather than simply facts themselves. Often insight comes from a perspective that isn't tied to the facts, so all questions have to a varying degree validity.

Where would Joseph Smith be if he shut up because he didn't really know much of any facts surrounding Christ.

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 10:11, 2006-11-01

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Since I am admittedly unlearned in the facts about Thomas Jefferson, here are a few websites that may be worthwhile reading.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tj3.html

Based on what I read here, arbilad, you may not want to think of him as such a role model president... pretty liberal and extra-constitutionalist in some of his policy and practice...

http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/tjefferson.html

Pretty general stuff, again...

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/

The Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress... ahem, I don't have the time to peruse them right now...

http://www.tjheritage.org/documents/TwoJeffersonLinesTraced9-21-76.pdf

Now, I find this quite interesting... Note the name of the "historian" who initially seems to have led the modern crusade that Jefferson kept a female slave the age of his daughter as essentially a concubine... yes folks, it was Fawn Brodie... the same person who fabricated some real wild stories and "history" about Joseph Smith...

http://www.tjheritage.org/documents/BostonGlobeLTE.pdf

http://www.tjheritage.org/documents/RJMcMurry_2.pdf

Hmmm... political mudslinging from days gone by that were tantamount to libel and slander? What think ye?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/slaves/bacon.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/

And of course, there is the PBS frontline documentary to consider...

Here is all that I found about Jefferson being the executor of a will (meaning one of many wills apparently) of a General Thaddeus Kosciuski (from http://www.lituanus.org/1986/86_1_03.htm):

One of Kosciusko's most welcome visitors soon became Thomas Jefferson, then Vice President under Adams. Both men shared a liberal idealism which for Kosciusko had been shaped in large part by the principles of the American Revolution, of which Jefferson had been one of the prime authors. Not surprisingly, the two quickly became congenial friends. Jefferson wrote at this time: "I see him often, and with great pleasure...He is as pure a son of liberty as I have known, and of that liberty which is to go to all, and not to the few or to the rich alone." Much indeed can be inferred of Kosciusko from this relationship. A considerable body of correspondence on a variety of subjects grew up between them over the next twenty years, its tone attesting to a mutual liking and respect.

Out of Kosciusko's friendship arose a curious series of events which were not concluded until more than half a century later and many years after his death. Originating from a generous impulse, the affair began when Kosciusko appointed Jefferson executor of a will authorizing the latter to employ the proceeds of Kosciusko's Revolutionary War pay in purchasing the freedom of American slaves and financing their

education or otherwise and (instructing them) ... in the duties of morality which may make them good neighbors, good fathers or mothers4, husbands or wives and in their duties as citizens teaching them to be defenders of their Liberty and of the good order of society and in whatsoever may make them happy and useful.

Both high-minded and practical, this American will illustrates in homely fashion the basic tenets of Kosciusko's social philosophy which had been proclaimed in more general terms during the Insurrection: personal freedom had to be supplemented with the means (in this case education) for earning a livelihood and also for instilling a sense of personal and civic morality. This compassionate understanding of the needs and responsibilities of society's deprived classes was summed up later when Kosciusko declared that "Liberty alone does not provide for the peasant and his family."

Unfortunately, conflicting claims to the American funds arose after his death due to Kosciusko's uncharacteristic carelessness in drawing up later wills in Europe. Undergoing protracted litigation, the bequest to Jefferson remained legally blocked until 1852 when the U.S. Supreme Court awarded the American investments to relatives in Europe, thus frustrating Kosciusko's original intent. One last piece of misfortune was that most of the funds, which had grown several times in the intervening years, were embezzled by one of the administrators.

So, Jeffery, I don't think it is entirely fair to state Jefferson did not abide the law in failing in the "purchasing the freedom of American slaves" with the proceeds of the investments from his Revolution pay. It appears that probate and conflicting wills and claims to the money prevented it more so than Jefferson not doing anything. Remember, Jefferson couldn't do anything until Kosciusko's death anyway...

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, I never said that Jefferson's politics were perfect. I think that Adams was a much better president, despite the Sedition acts.
Also, as far as Jeffeson's own slaves, how could he have manumitted them (bequeathed them ownership of themselves) when he was so heavily in debt? Even today, debtors must be satisfied before anyone get's their inheritance from a will.
If you were to attack Joseph Smith that way, you could find a lot of stuff in his past that you could take out of context or spin to make it sound like he was a very evil person. In fact, anti-mormons do that same exact thing. When you dig deeper, you find that the facts tell a different story. For instance, Joseph Smith was accused of being a gold digger and a treasure hunter. That's true, as far as it goes. He and several others were hired by a man who was looking for treasure. He was simply doing honest, physical labor. There were many times in his life when he had serious debt, and he wasn't able to pay in a timely manner. That can be spun in many non-complimentary ways.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

I appreciate the additional information regarding Kosiack Cat. It helps bring the information to better light.

However the DNA and the fact that he held one opinion but practiced another, that he also viciously attacked Washington and even Adams (Adams would reconcile later, Washington never did). And that the debt of sold slaves is hard to reconcile with the ideal of inalienable rights, meaning rights that should exceed the issue of commerce (one could then argue "for" the money changers in the temple in terms of inalienable correctness).

Brodie is a red herring since more reputable people have investigated and found there is substance to the issue, including the Montecello society itself.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

Cat, I never said that Jefferson's politics were perfect. I think that Adams was a much better president, despite the Sedition acts.

Was being facetious... As to the rest of your comment, couldn't agree more.

Jeffery LQ1W wrote:

And that the debt of sold slaves is hard to reconcile with the ideal of inalienable rights, meaning rights that should exceed the issue of commerce

That sentence didn't make sense... but if I understand what I assume you meant, paying a debt by selling off slaves is hard to reconcile with the ideal of inalienable rights, or rights that are above an economic or commerce interest.

Okay, idealistically, yes, and I agree.

But, I think the law was such in Virginia that even a free slave (who had purchased their freedom or whose owner had granted it to them) could be legally taken back into slavery if they did not leave the state within a certain time frame. Perhaps Jefferson did not free all his slaves while alive due to a couple things: 1. He did not have the means wherewith to give them the resources to move to a state where they could remain free men; 2. There may not have been the labor available to do the work at Monticello had all the slaves been freed and moved to a state so they could remain free men (do you think you would find antebellum white men out doing the field work that was attributed to that of slaves elsewhere in the state? They would be working their own small spread instead of being a tenant farmer... Think the reality of the modern day example of migrant workers in the U.S. who is really going to do that work if they suddenly all go away?). Okay, granted those are big assumptions, but Jefferson really has no say into what happens to his legal property (which included slaves) at the time of his death if he had debts that had to be paid by the estate. He may also have known that he could not leave that sort of burden with his heirs, who knows if those he owed money to would have gone after them for satisfaction and recompense. So, while he may have felt a desire to have all his slaves be free upon his death, he I doubt he wanted his heirs to take his debt on and thus did not free the bulk of the slaves so that his debts could be settled.

Does it matter in the long run? He was in debt. Slaves, though people and of course with inalienable rights (which had yet to be legally conferred and protected by several more decades of time, a war, and several ammendments to the constitution), were a leveragable resource that equated to hard cash. Which would have been better then, he sell them all while still alive and thus be able to wash his hands of being a slave owner (and perhaps out of debt as well), or maintain them as long as possible under his care and protection?

Jeffery LQ1W wrote:

Brodie is a red herring

Well, she is something, that is for sure... Who wrote the rebuttal of "No Ma'am, that isn't History?" to her "No Man Knows My History"? I didn't mean to throw her out there as such, I just found it interesting, and the reference came early in my brief research foray. Honestly, I didn't know how far back the claims of paternity and the "secret affair" thing went until looking at some of the stuff. I find it equally interesting that the so called Y chromosone thing wasn't taken back another generation or so. Seems to me if the theory of a brother / uncle / cousin being the one who sired a child or children with the slave girl and he was a blood relative of Jefferson, couldn't he also carry that same Y chromosone passed down from their common male ancestor?

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

My points:

Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, he even spoke against it and worked against it.
Jefferson did not apply the same standard towards himself as he did others.
Washington, Jeffersons contemporary, also knew slavery was wrong, and convinced his wife to manumit all of his slaves upon his death.
Side note Sally Hemming

The proof is convincing that he had a long term relationship with her.
He knowingly sold off or allowed his own children to be sold off rather than give them their freedom
Had knowingly had overseers that were difficult and even harsh

These things I think I have convincingly argued.

Jeffery LQ1W wrote:

And that the debt of sold slaves is hard to reconcile with the ideal of inalienable rights, meaning rights that should exceed the issue of commerce

That sentence didn't make sense... but if I understand what I assume you meant, paying a debt by selling off slaves is hard to reconcile with the ideal of inalienable rights, or rights that are above an economic or commerce interest.

I suppose I assumed too much and wasn't clear. Unalienable rights were actually originally written as "god given". So if these rights being given by god, were rejected for reasons of commerce, does commerce exceed god? Perhaps to Jefferson the deist they did. But that still does not speak well of him.

I don't like Jefferson on a personal basis. That does not mean I don't appreciate his genius or inspiration, but it also doesn't mean I will ignore his weaknesses.

arbilad · Head Chef

1. Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, he even spoke against it and worked against it.
2. Jefferson did not apply the same standard towards himself as he did others.
3. Washington, Jeffersons contemporary, also knew slavery was wrong, and convinced his wife to manumit all of his slaves upon his death.
4. Side note Sally Hemming

1. The proof is convincing that he had a long term relationship with her.
2. He knowingly sold off or allowed his own children to be sold off rather than give them their freedom
3. Had knowingly had overseers that were difficult and even harsh

These things I think I have convincingly argued.

Actually, I don't think they've been convincingly argued at all (especially #4), but since you have rejected the evidence presented, I didn't see any point in arguing it further. I coul present research more evidence, but I only think that worht the effort if I have a chance of convincing you.

I put to you the question, Jeffrey: in your view, if Jefferson had been truly converted to the belief, and truly wished to free his slaves upon his death, what actions would he have taken? It seems to me that he had absolutely no say in the matter. He was in debt, and the debtors had a legal right to his property (I agree, no human being is property, but the law of the time didn't see it that way), and their wishes took precedence over absolutely anything he specified in his will. He could have left explicit instruction in his will specifying that his slaves be freed, but that would have been superceded by the wishes of his creditors.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Jeffery,

I can appreciate your personal distaste for the man. Me, I have no opinion one way or the other actually. He had his virtues and he had his vices. I don't feel he was an evil man, though, living in the society and level of Light that was available in his era. And, he most likely fulfilled the role to which he was foreordained in mortality.

I personally don't like James Madison. Why? Because of something as inane as the name of his wife and the fact that he had not adequately built up defenses around the capital in the War of 1812... I also don't like Alexander Hamilton because he shot Aaron Burr in a duel (surely Hamilton knew that it was wrong to kill a man, yes? And over a personality clash / offense?). But, the fact of the matter is, I really know nothing about any of these men. I have never been interested in a lot of historical biography stuff. At the age when that sort of interest typically develops, I was more into reading about General Custer and the like...

What would be helpful in these sort of discussions, though, and that is what I hoped to illustrate by showing some source material, is to do just that... encourage folks to provide documentation to support why they have that opinion. As of yet, I don't think anyone has yet.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Um, Cat, it was Burr that killed Hamilton. Hamilton didn't want the duel and I believe he aimed wide of Burr.

And Madison wasn't to blame for the fall of Washington, D.C. The Army was totally outmatched by the British--both in leadership and in the quality of the troops in the ranks.

Madison ROCKS!!

-- Edited by fear of shiz at 16:11, 2006-11-01

arbilad · Head Chef

Oh sure, Shiz, bring facts into the discussion. So far we've been doing just fine with hyperbole and half remembered anecdotes.
BTW, I am kidding.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Okay, like I said... I don't know much about these guys... So I can't stand Hamilton because he had the nerve to get killed in a duel with one of Washington's former junior officers...

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

fear of shiz wrote:

Um, Cat, it was Burr that killed Hamilton. Hamilton didn't want the duel and I believe he aimed wide of Burr.

-- Edited by fear of shiz at 16:11, 2006-11-01

Only because Hamilton was issued a novelty dueling pistol which only fired a moderately annoying cork! Unfortunately, everything he learned about dueling came from a book written by Alfred E. Newman.

I think the argument on Jefferson comes down to three or four different positions:

1. Jefferson was a hypocrit and I hate him.

2. Jefferson was a great man and I love him.

3. Jefferson had an Airplane and later a Starship that they built this city on RocknRoll with.

4. Jefferson who?

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 16:17, 2006-11-01

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 16:18, 2006-11-01

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

1. Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, he even spoke against it and worked against it.
2. Jefferson did not apply the same standard towards himself as he did others.
3. Washington, Jeffersons contemporary, also knew slavery was wrong, and convinced his wife to manumit all of his slaves upon his death.
4. Side note Sally Hemming

1. The proof is convincing that he had a long term relationship with her.
2. He knowingly sold off or allowed his own children to be sold off rather than give them their freedom
3. Had knowingly had overseers that were difficult and even harsh

These things I think I have convincingly argued.

Actually, I don't think they've been convincingly argued at all (especially #4), but since you have rejected the evidence presented, I didn't see any point in arguing it further. I coul present research more evidence, but I only think that worht the effort if I have a chance of convincing you.

I put to you the question, Jeffrey: in your view, if Jefferson had been truly converted to the belief, and truly wished to free his slaves upon his death, what actions would he have taken? It seems to me that he had absolutely no say in the matter. He was in debt, and the debtors had a legal right to his property (I agree, no human being is property, but the law of the time didn't see it that way), and their wishes took precedence over absolutely anything he specified in his will. He could have left explicit instruction in his will specifying that his slaves be freed, but that would have been superceded by the wishes of his creditors.

I don't recall rejecting any evidence, however I have tried to look at the evidence you have presented. I have presented a paper, written by a pro-Jefferson historical society that pretty much includes both DNA evidence and a documentation of what has been presented. You may want to go back and review the link.

I don't recall anyone presenting anything near that complete as a rebuttal.

I put to you the question, Jeffrey: in your view, if Jefferson had been truly converted to the belief, and truly wished to free his slaves upon his death, what actions would he have taken? It seems to me that he had absolutely no say in the matter. He was in debt, and the debtors had a legal right to his property (I agree, no human being is property, but the law of the time didn't see it that way), and their wishes took precedence over absolutely anything he specified in his will. He could have left explicit instruction in his will specifying that his slaves be freed, but that would have been superceded by the wishes of his creditors.

What actions would Jefferson have taken? How about freeing the slaves prior to them being viewed as chattel? How about at least freeing those who were of his own blood? He had already seen Washington do the same thing, he knew it could be done. If he had manumitted them and had them working on his farm, they would have been free to leave and would not have been sold as chattel. Had Jefferson freed them prior to his death, they would have been free.

But llow me to digress slightly. Jefferson did free "some" slaves. He did indeed free his own children (I carried out some further research on it and therefore point #2 on the Sally Hemmings portion is incorrect, though the other points remain valid). He did feel an obligaton to free those sons and daughters of Sally Hemmings. But chose not to free other slaves. It further undermines the stance that he did not have an affair with her. And it shows that he knew slavery to be wrong for it was wrong for his own blood to be sold. Yet not wrong for other humans to be sold.

Again I view it as a hypocrisy on his part.

Creditors don't own you or your decision on how to treat slaves. If you speak against slavery, and consider it a canker, allowing it to continue and allowing your death to actually add to the misery of a people is wrong.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Cat Herder wrote:

Jeffery,

I can appreciate your personal distaste for the man. Me, I have no opinion one way or the other actually. He had his virtues and he had his vices. I don't feel he was an evil man, though, living in the society and level of Light that was available in his era. And, he most likely fulfilled the role to which he was foreordained in mortality.

I personally don't like James Madison. Why? Because of something as inane as the name of his wife and the fact that he had not adequately built up defenses around the capital in the War of 1812... I also don't like Alexander Hamilton because he shot Aaron Burr in a duel (surely Hamilton knew that it was wrong to kill a man, yes? And over a personality clash / offense?). But, the fact of the matter is, I really know nothing about any of these men. I have never been interested in a lot of historical biography stuff. At the age when that sort of interest typically develops, I was more into reading about General Custer and the like...

What would be helpful in these sort of discussions, though, and that is what I hoped to illustrate by showing some source material, is to do just that... encourage folks to provide documentation to support why they have that opinion. As of yet, I don't think anyone has yet.

I really like Madison. Single handedly put our constitution together. As to the defense of DC. The military was reduced to the secretary of state (Monroe) being a look out for the army. The military leadership was inept. In fact, if an old revolutionary wardog hadn't taken over the defense of Baltimore, it would have fallen and the war would have been over there. The US was actually itching for this war. Henry Clay thought we could take Canada with a bunch of Kentuckians (boy did he eat his words on that one), it before New Orleans, it was pretty humiliating.

I especially liked Madisons wife. Madison was not a big slap happy good time guy. But his wife was especially gregarious and she loved this country, when the British were almost upon DC, she remained while the army abandoned the city. She did everything possible to save those important documents like the Declration of Independence and the US Constitution. She also took the portrait of George Washington.

During all of this the New England states were planning to secede and go to England's side.

It was not a good time to be president and first lady, but they were up to a very difficult task. Imagine what might have happened had she not had the foresight (while men around her ran) to save those documents, or had she been captured.

An excellent DVD covering this information can be found in "The War of 1812" it does a wonderful job explaining those points.

Oh and I have provided sources and documentation for my positions, take another look

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Finally, I don't hate Jefferson. Please people, lighten up. I appreciate his genius, however I won't shy away from some very ticklish issues involved.

Let me throw another bomb out there. Edison was a thief and a liar. Lets start a thread on how he ripped off Tesla, a genius whose equal was found only in Einstein (with whom he had a friendship, along with Mark Twain).

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

James Madison ROCKS!

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

A short rocker. I think he was 5'3" or something like that.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

That's part of his appeal. A short, soft-spoken, unpretentious man with a genius for behind-the-scenes politicking and Constitution crafting. His intellect made up for his lack of charisma and stature.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm a late comer to this thread, but I have a question.

If Washington thought slavery was so evil, why did he wait to free his slaves until after his ? Why not free them during his lifetime?

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Almost all the slaves belonged to his wife, and were technically his wife's property. He spent the most part of the latter part of his and her life convincing her that this is what should be done. It was the only compromise she would allow.

In the book "An imperfect god: Washington and Slavery" it shows how he came to the realization of what needed to be done. At first early on he did not care much for slavery, but did not see it as abhorrent either, he changed his mind as time progressed. He came to his view on slavery while watching slave auctions tear slave families apart.

In the end, not only did he manumit the slaves, but provided land for them to work on in order to support themselves.

It speaks to the mans moral character.

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 10:11, 2006-11-02