Art Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by NYSkins1 Well, I am a liberal, and I consider this to be absurd. While Jefferson did have his downfalls (i.e. owning slaves), he was a great man in several aspects. Anyways, what rich landowning white mad DIDN'T own slaves back then? While it certainly was bad that he owned slaves, there are several other aspects of his character that should be recognized. It wasn't certainly bad that he owned slaves, because, as you said, you couldn't find rich white men who didn't own slaves back then. Owning slaves was perfectly normal and acceptable at the time. Our concepts of right and wrong are our own, within the context of when we live. We don't get to look back and say something we think is wrong today was wrong for a time when it wasn't at all wrong. Times change. We judge behavior against the measure of the time in which people live. Not on the changing parameters and perspectives of each passing year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by Art It wasn't certainly bad that he owned slaves, because, as you said, you couldn't find rich white men who didn't own slaves back then. Owning slaves was perfectly normal and acceptable at the time. Our concepts of right and wrong are our own, within the context of when we live. We don't get to look back and say something we think is wrong today was wrong for a time when it wasn't at all wrong. Times change. We judge behavior against the measure of the time in which people live. Not on the changing parameters and perspectives of each passing year. I'm not saying Jefferson wasn't a great man and I think this lady's a loony. However one of the knocks on Jefferson was that he had SUCH a progressive understanding of Freedom and the Rights of Man, but was (unlike Adams, Franklin and other great men of the time) unable to include Blacks and Women whatsoever in his thinking. For some reason he was unable to remove his blinders and realize that his concepts could be applied to ALL people. Given Jefferson's brilliance, that seems a little odd. That said, the man was human and we all have our faults. I think it's safe to say the good he did for humanity FAR outweighed his personal shortcomings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 anybody remember that SNL skit with "Founding Fathers" where Washington, Jefferson and Franklin come from the past to help the US of the early 90's with all their problems. They show up and have a Presser, "We've got a plan to save the economy, while not hurting business and the environment.....any questions?" and somebody like Rob Schnider stands up and say "Is is true that you owned Slaves?" "Yes, yes......its true.....but in our 100 point plan, we can save the......." and the next report busts in "Excuse me, and Mr. Jefferson, you fathers children with your Slaves?......" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Having forgotten nearly all the things I learned in 12th grade VA history - :doh: - I was always under the impression that Jefferson was a man leading a double life. I always thought of him as a slaveowner who didn't want to own slaves (deep down). His southern roots ensured that he would be a slave owning farmer - but his education enlightened him to the freedom of man. Perhaps my take on him is a little off (or amateurish)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Hi, my name is Spaceman Spiff, and I LOVE to start threads with the word "liberals" in the title, even if the things I post about are limited to one specific area of the population and not indicative of the population as a whole. But in my mind, all liberals are running around loving this stuff, and it furthers my hate vibe. After all, all liberals are responsible for everything bad in the country. I know, because Rush Limbaugh said so! :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by E-Dog Night Hi, my name is Spaceman Spiff, and I LOVE to start threads with the word "liberals" in the title, even if the things I post about are limited to one specific area of the population and not indicative of the population as a whole. But in my mind, all liberals are running around loving this stuff, and it furthers my hate vibe. After all, all liberals are responsible for everything bad in the country. I know, because Rush Limbaugh said so! :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: My thoughts exactly, I'm so sick of some of the political finger pointing that goes on at this site. I can't read a news article on here without someone putting a political spin on it. Sad, very sad :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by E-Dog Night Hi, my name is Spaceman Spiff, and I LOVE to start threads with the word "liberals" in the title, even if the things I post about are limited to one specific area of the population and not indicative of the population as a whole. But in my mind, all liberals are running around loving this stuff, and it furthers my hate vibe. After all, all liberals are responsible for everything bad in the country. I know, because Rush Limbaugh said so! :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: Nah, Spiff is just a little misguided. And angry. No intent to ignite a war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Oh and by the way I'm a liberal and I find the name change to be a ridiculous idea. Go figure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by T.E.G. Having forgotten nearly all the things I learned in 12th grade VA history - :doh: - I was always under the impression that Jefferson was a man leading a double life. I always thought of him as a slaveowner who didn't want to own slaves (deep down). His southern roots ensured that he would be a slave owning farmer - but his education enlightened him to the freedom of man. Perhaps my take on him is a little off (or amateurish)... Well ... that's a REAL positive spin on the man. Closer to the truth is that maybe he would have freed his slaves, but he was always so deep in debt that he couldn't afford to free them. He never stopped buying things, never stopped spending and re-creating Montecello, that he simply needed the cheap labor to continue to work his land and pay off his creditors. Though he often lamented his financial situation, he never made any serious attempt to get himself out of it. He died virtually penniless and some 150 of his slaves ended up being auctioned off to pay off his debt. Had he TRULY been a man of uncomprimising principle regarding slavery, he could have freed them. Sadly, his vices kept him from doing so. Like I said, the man was human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 I'm a true blue San Francisco liberal, but for god's sake, whenever I go over to Berkeley, I get the urge to kick a few "activists" right in their whiny asses. I feel about Berkeley the way you conservatives probably feel about Northern Idaho..... just stop embarassing us with your puerile antics, you loons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by Art It wasn't certainly bad that he owned slaves, because, as you said, you couldn't find rich white men who didn't own slaves back then. Owning slaves was perfectly normal and acceptable at the time. Our concepts of right and wrong are our own, within the context of when we live. We don't get to look back and say something we think is wrong today was wrong for a time when it wasn't at all wrong. Times change. We judge behavior against the measure of the time in which people live. Not on the changing parameters and perspectives of each passing year. This is very true. It is maddening to me that they choose to focus on a fault of the times rather than the fact that his ideal laid the foundation for the greatest nation that the earth has ever seen. The very fact that these loonies can stand up and make such protests are a direct result of his vision and those of the Founders. Granted, the times and prevailing attitudes caused them to be a bit shortsighted, but the ideal it put forth led to the changes that has brought the relative equality we enjoy now. How that is lost on them is something I just don't understand. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Wasn't cesar chavez also a communist railed against capitalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by Funkyalligator Wasn't cesar chavez also a communist railed against capitalism? Not a communist. He was a union leader, and he railed against unfettered capitalism as it affected farm workers in his time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooney Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by TMat184 I'm a liberal and I find the name change to be a ridiculous idea. I'm conservative leaning and I don't think the idea is ridiculous. Apparently I'm the only one. If a community wants to rename its local schools to more actively reflect the heritage of its residents, I'm not opposed. If a name change at any school helps in anyway in the education process and helps instill pride and dignity to a childs day/life, then go for it. Heck, in Arlen, Texas, a middle school is named after Tom Landry. It's the reasoning that Jefferson was a slave owner so the name is offensive and has to be changed that is flawed and silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted April 7, 2005 Author Share Posted April 7, 2005 Oh please, I'm not a rabid conservative...i just hate liberals. On the real, i'm a pretty live and let live person...its just extreme crap like this that gets at me. And the title of the thread is no reason to get worked up, i'm just poking fun...relax guys, jeez. no need to get uptight about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 "I just hate Liberals" lovely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford "I just hate Liberals" lovely see wink smiley and grow a little thicker skin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff Oh please, I'm not a rabid conservative...i just hate liberals. On the real, i'm a pretty live and let live person...its just extreme crap like this that gets at me. And the title of the thread is no reason to get worked up, i'm just poking fun...relax guys, jeez. no need to get uptight about it. It's only a message board, I know, but your flamey little titles that don't represent what are in your posts...well that's just bad form. It's not a question of being uptight; it's a matter that you start threads with titles like "More liberal crap" and "Liberals are at it again" when there's no mention of liberals or democrats in your post. You're full of it, basically, and when someone calls you on it you act like you were just kidding or something, when clearly you were not. Always a good tactic - when being a tool, pretend like it's the other guys fault for pointing it out. That's rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by E-Dog Night It's only a message board, I know, but your flamey little titles that don't represent what are in your posts...well that's just bad form. It's not a question of being uptight; it's a matter that you start threads with titles like "More liberal crap" and "Liberals are at it again" when there's no mention of liberals or democrats in your post. You're full of it, basically, and when someone calls you on it you act like you were just kidding or something, when clearly you were not. Always a good tactic - when being a tool, pretend like it's the other guys fault for pointing it out. That's rich. BINGO!!! We have a winner!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Jefferson was deeply conflicted about being a slaveowner, as were many of the slaveholding Founding Fathers. They fully appreciated the contradiction between the basic tenet of the Declaration and owning human beings. It wasn't until the cotton gin was invented and slavery became profitable that the tortured rationalizations for the practice came into vogue. As Henry said, the guy was human. He held onto his slaves because he couldn't afford not to. He put it this way: slavery is like holding a wolf by the ears - You don't like it, but you don't dare let go. I wish he could have subordinated his indulgences and taken the moral high ground on this issue. I still think the body of his work shows him to be amongst the five most important Americans in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Actually, I've read that many of the FFs owned slaves, but also that many of them wanted the new Constitution to prohibit them. To me, that's not something to be ashamed of, it's the height of integrety: How many politicians, today, would publicly support a proposal that would cost them votes, let alone costing them money? (FWIW, that's why I consider Ford to be a great President: I'm fully convinced that when he pardoned Nixon, he knew it would cost him votes. (Maybe he thought he could win anyway, but he knew it would cost). And I'm convinced he did it because he thought it was good for the country. (And, I think he was right.)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 Originally posted by E-Dog Night It's only a message board, I know, but your flamey little titles that don't represent what are in your posts...well that's just bad form. It's not a question of being uptight; it's a matter that you start threads with titles like "More liberal crap" and "Liberals are at it again" when there's no mention of liberals or democrats in your post. You're full of it, basically, and when someone calls you on it you act like you were just kidding or something, when clearly you were not. Always a good tactic - when being a tool, pretend like it's the other guys fault for pointing it out. That's rich. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUSTINMFOX Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Washington owned slaves, but freed them all in his will. Adams did not own slaves. Was against it completely. Franklin owned slaves, but very few. The fact that he advertised selling some in his paper damned him a little. But, he fought at the end of his life to end slavery. Hamilton didn't own slaves either. The fact that his idea of government is how our country is still running makes it funny that he's isn't looked upon as favorably as Jefferson. But, he was blunt, and very vain. He had some cheating and other female problems as well....not to mention that he was a **** from the Carribbean didn't help either. Jefferson owned a lot of slaves...perhaps more than any other founding father.(though I'm not sure) He was a very eloquent writer, and had a self-effacing style not to unlike Franklin. His "Notes on Virginia" (only published work) was severely damning. He argued that blacks' brains were not up to par with whites. That they were genetically better laborers than whites and could withstand the heat better. The fact that he did not free his slaves including the one he had slept/had children with hurts him the most. I think removing his name from the school is a little silly, but not without merit. Most Americans would rather turn the other cheek, then to face the reality that is their beloved Jefferson. He did write the Deleration of Independence, but it was heavily revised and edited by Franklin. Most of it was ALL Jefferson though, and the guy w/Madison did give us friggin religous freedom. Too bad his ideal agrarian wine sipping government never turned out...it could've been fun. Despite all of this, Jefferson and Teddy are two of my favorites:D Jefferson - Best writer Franklin - THE quintessential American, best all-round talent Washington - Best leader Hamilton - Best mind (IMO) Adams - Best orator/debater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 Dustin, didn't TJ want his slaves released / have them released when he died? I've also read that TJ wanted the Declaration of Independance to abolish slavery, and that Franklin and the rest (like your post said) rewrote it. True story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUSTINMFOX Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff Dustin, didn't TJ want his slaves released / have them released when he died? I've also read that TJ wanted the Declaration of Independance to abolish slavery, and that Franklin and the rest (like your post said) rewrote it. True story? Jefferson was in heavy debt, but it was his own fault. He was always reworking Monticello and was buying lavish thing in France while ministering there. He could have freed his slaves, but most likely choose not to for his own families well being. But, he should have at least freed Sally and the rest of the house slaves. Everyone would WRITE that they wanted the end of slavery. But, most were unwilling to sacrifice to make it happen. Jefferson included the slave trade in the Declerarion of Independence, but I'm pretty sure it was mostly in the part damning King George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.