Jefferson / Slavery: Split From What is Libertarianism?

[Horatio Parker]

Doesn't answer the question. His indebtedness was not the point.

well then what is the point? The slaves he freed, or in the case of two of his sons let run away and then did not pursue them, were either his children or old or skilled craftsmen he felt had more than earned him enough to afford their freedom. In no writing I have read either by or about TJ has fear of melancholy and abandonment been a barrier to his freeing slaves. He needed the money the slaves provided him be it from their labor or as collateral for loans.

I asked if you had a source that TJ didn't free slaves for financial reasons. You don't.

You could apply your reasoning and also say he didn't buy books or maintain an extensive wine cellar. Except he did.

Admittedly I was speculating. I gained an impression from his biography, where he negotiated with one or some of his slaves to free them after a period to pay him back for training, culinary I think. I had an impression that he used bondage to keep his slaves around him, because when he freed them, they left. That's not an excuse; it's pathetic to exploit a situation like that. But it did make me feel a bit sorry for him.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're assuming Jefferson thought blacks were people. All the evidence suggests otherwise. There are lots of people who are against tyranny and are fine with us owning, eating and treating animals like slaves. I'd say all the evidence is that Jeffersson equated blacks with animals. Which wouldn't make him a hypocrite at all. Just a racist.

Jefferson had sex with probably several of these blacks.

Did he think he was having sex with an animal of another species?

He was into bestiality?

We don't bestow human values and equality upon others with our penis. And we don't lose our human rights by partaking in bestiality.

I'm sure he had plenty to talk with his therapist about. But then again, that's what is so handy about belonging to the master race. They get to define what is moral and correct. He banged on about that part incessantly.

 

[untermensche]

Jefferson had sex with probably several of these blacks.

Did he think he was having sex with an animal of another species?

He was into bestiality?

We don't bestow human values and equality upon others with our penis. And we don't lose our human rights by partaking in bestiality.

I'm sure he had plenty to talk with his therapist about. But then again, that's what is so handy about belonging to the master race. They get to define what is moral and correct. He banged on about that part incessantly.

We most certainly do express our feelings with our penis.

Maybe Jefferson thought he was raping some other species of animal.

I doubt it. He was very intelligent.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Slaveowners knew, and many recognized in ways subtle and not so subtle, that the children born of these unions were their sons and daughters, not animals.

Yes, half human and half animal. To keep going with the analogy. There were debates well into the 20'th century if a "mulatto" had higher or lower racial value than their black parent. Nazis had firm opinions to the latter for instance

The mind is wonderfully adept at self-delusion and justification... of anything really... no matter how horrid or monstrous.

And that declaration will not get you off the hook for doing things monstrous and horrid.

Hannas Arendt wrote a great book on the topic called "the banality of evil".

I really think it's that simple. If our culture re-enforces certain values then anything goes. Basically, I think Sartre was wrong.

You seem to be saying all kinds of things all over the place. But the gist that I got was that the french enlightenment saw all for racial equality but at the same time the french didn't understand it and that nazi style racism didn't catch on until about 150 years ago but racism (non-Nazi style?) is old and par the course.

What a puzzlement!

Pretty much. Because of people like Rosseau. What people in the colonies learned was that the noble savage nonsense was nonsense.

In modern terms projection onto something they knew nothing about. The French peasantry could identify with the oppressed slaves. But they didn't give a fuck when Napoleon re-introduced slavery for economic reasons. So much for talk of equality

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Thomas Jefferson, however, freed only seven slaves. He freed two in his lifetime and five in his will. Why didn’t he grant freedom to the rest, at least after his death?

When Jefferson died in 1826, he was $107,000 in debt. Six months later, crowds flocked to Monticello for an auction. There they bid on Jefferson’s property, which would be sold to help pay his debt. This included “household furniture”, crops, livestock, and “130 valuable negroes.”

http://classroom.monticello.org/kids/resources/profile/263/Middle/Jefferson-and-Slavery/

Jefferson says, "If Cornwallis had taken the slaves to free them, he would have done the right thing." But what Jefferson never realizes is that he gets five slaves back and doesn't free them. He keeps them in bondage the rest of their lives. There's a tremendous contradiction, a tremendous hypocrisy between Jefferson's words and his deeds when we look at his articulation of human liberty and when we look at the fact that he is a tenacious slave holder, going after his runaway slaves throughout his life, holding onto his slaves and, of course, using his slaves as a source of ready capital whenever he needs money. Jefferson goes to France and seems to buy everything in sight: over 80 crates of everything from dishes to furniture to books to sculpture to paintings. It goes on and on and on. They recently found bottles of wine still in France that Jefferson forgot to bring back with him. How does he pay for all this? He pays for it in part by the labor of his slaves. He pays for it in part by selling slaves. He sells over 80 slaves in just the decade alone from 1785 to 1795.

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Finkelman.htm

Jefferson continued to struggle with debt after serving as President. He used his hundreds of slaves as collateral to his creditors. This debt was due to his lavish lifestyle, long construction and changes to Monticello, imported goods, art, etc. He frequently entertained house guests for extended periods at Monticello, and served them expensive wines and food.[79][80] He also incurred debt in helping support his only surviving daughter, Martha Jefferson Randolph, and her large family. She had separated from her husband, who had become abusive from alcoholism and mental illness (according to different sources), and brought her family to live at Monticello.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

The reason Jefferson did not free but five of his own slaves in his will was simple: Under Virginia law at the time, slaves were considered "property," and they were expressly subject to the claims of creditors. Jefferson died deeply in debt.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324307204578127323166616886

 

[SimpleDon]

Deleted by Don​

My bad. Obviously I thought that this was the Libertarian thread.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

well then what is the point? The slaves he freed, or in the case of two of his sons let run away and then did not pursue them, were either his children or old or skilled craftsmen he felt had more than earned him enough to afford their freedom. In no writing I have read either by or about TJ has fear of melancholy and abandonment been a barrier to his freeing slaves. He needed the money the slaves provided him be it from their labor or as collateral for loans.

I asked if you had a source that TJ didn't free slaves for financial reasons. You don't.

You could apply your reasoning and also say he didn't buy books or maintain an extensive wine cellar. Except he did.

Admittedly I was speculating. I gained an impression from his biography, where he negotiated with one or some of his slaves to free them after a period to pay him back for training, culinary I think. I had an impression that he used bondage to keep his slaves around him, because when he freed them, they left. That's not an excuse; it's pathetic to exploit a situation like that. But it did make me feel a bit sorry for him.

Historically speaking, enslavement was an institution, both economic and social. Applying today's cultural norms to Jefferson is an anachronism. It's mostly a black/white thing today but that's a recent historical development. Were all the ancients mostly racists too? Was it all about skin color?

Has everyone who uses fossil fuels willfully decided to cause environmental damage and extinguish species? Calling Jefferson racist by today's standard is going full retard and only serves to satisfy some present emotional need.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I asked if you had a source that TJ didn't free slaves for financial reasons. You don't.

You could apply your reasoning and also say he didn't buy books or maintain an extensive wine cellar. Except he did.

Admittedly I was speculating. I gained an impression from his biography, where he negotiated with one or some of his slaves to free them after a period to pay him back for training, culinary I think. I had an impression that he used bondage to keep his slaves around him, because when he freed them, they left. That's not an excuse; it's pathetic to exploit a situation like that. But it did make me feel a bit sorry for him.

Historically speaking, enslavement was an institution, both economic and social. Applying today's cultural norms to Jefferson is an anachronism. It's mostly a black/white thing today but that's a recent historical development. Were all the ancients mostly racists too? Was it all about skin color?

Has everyone who uses fossil fuels willfully decided to cause environmental damage and extinguish species? Calling Jefferson racist by today's standard is going full retard and only serves to satisfy some present emotional need.

He is not being called a racist by today's language. He is being called a hypocrite and a bigot by his own words and the work and words of people of his day.



"Am I Not A Man And A Brother?" 1787 medallion designed by Josiah Wedgwood for the British anti-slavery campaign

Now I know, some people believe there was a time when white supremacy, and its most blatant act -- slavery, was, if not right, at least innocent.

There has been no such time.

 

[Horatio Parker]

http://classroom.monticello.org/kids/resources/profile/263/Middle/Jefferson-and-Slavery/

Jefferson says, "If Cornwallis had taken the slaves to free them, he would have done the right thing." But what Jefferson never realizes is that he gets five slaves back and doesn't free them. He keeps them in bondage the rest of their lives. There's a tremendous contradiction, a tremendous hypocrisy between Jefferson's words and his deeds when we look at his articulation of human liberty and when we look at the fact that he is a tenacious slave holder, going after his runaway slaves throughout his life, holding onto his slaves and, of course, using his slaves as a source of ready capital whenever he needs money. Jefferson goes to France and seems to buy everything in sight: over 80 crates of everything from dishes to furniture to books to sculpture to paintings. It goes on and on and on. They recently found bottles of wine still in France that Jefferson forgot to bring back with him. How does he pay for all this? He pays for it in part by the labor of his slaves. He pays for it in part by selling slaves. He sells over 80 slaves in just the decade alone from 1785 to 1795.

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Finkelman.htm

Jefferson continued to struggle with debt after serving as President. He used his hundreds of slaves as collateral to his creditors. This debt was due to his lavish lifestyle, long construction and changes to Monticello, imported goods, art, etc. He frequently entertained house guests for extended periods at Monticello, and served them expensive wines and food.[79][80] He also incurred debt in helping support his only surviving daughter, Martha Jefferson Randolph, and her large family. She had separated from her husband, who had become abusive from alcoholism and mental illness (according to different sources), and brought her family to live at Monticello.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

The reason Jefferson did not free but five of his own slaves in his will was simple: Under Virginia law at the time, slaves were considered "property," and they were expressly subject to the claims of creditors. Jefferson died deeply in debt.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324307204578127323166616886

Point taken.

What I had in mind wasn't universal freedom, but the freedom of a few slaves he was close to.

My TJ biography, Fawn Brodie's IIRC, is packed away somewhere in a box, so I can't look up the passages where I got that idea.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We don't bestow human values and equality upon others with our penis. And we don't lose our human rights by partaking in bestiality.

I'm sure he had plenty to talk with his therapist about. But then again, that's what is so handy about belonging to the master race. They get to define what is moral and correct. He banged on about that part incessantly.

We most certainly do express our feelings with our penis.

Maybe Jefferson thought he was raping some other species of animal.

I doubt it. He was very intelligent.

I didn't say we don't express feelings with our penis. We most certainly do. But that isn't the topic.

You're just assuming that Jefferson, being as intelligent as he is wouldn't engage in perverted sex. There is to my knowledge zero correlation between intelligence and sexual normality. Human sexuality does rather seem to do it's own thing. There's precious little we can do about our sex drives, regardless of how smart we are.

Also, in 1776 nobody knew whether blacks belonged to some other species or animal. Science was at best sketchy at that time. So even the smartest person alive at the time wouldn't have been able to answer that question. So Jefferson's relative intelligence (for his time) is irrelevant.

I remember reading about a 19'th debate regarding who had built the Zimbabwean imperial castles. The entire debate was about which European explorer and at what time had sailed down there, and how. The possibility that the Africans themselves had built it wasn't taken seriously by anyone. That speaks volumes about the view of blacks. People of the time, 1776, just saw it as blatantly obvious that blacks were, at best, some sort of lower species of human. It was seen as so obvious that nobody worth taking seriously challenged it. The (for its day progressive) poem "white mans burden" is about exactly this. Even the most progressive people thought blacks were a lesser gifted race. I find it very hard to believe that Jefferson could have held any other opinion. If he fell in love with his slave I'm sure that was a source of great shame for him.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Historically speaking, enslavement was an institution, both economic and social. Applying today's cultural norms to Jefferson is an anachronism. It's mostly a black/white thing today but that's a recent historical development. Were all the ancients mostly racists too? Was it all about skin color?

Has everyone who uses fossil fuels willfully decided to cause environmental damage and extinguish species? Calling Jefferson racist by today's standard is going full retard and only serves to satisfy some present emotional need.

He is not being called a racist by today's language. He is being called a hypocrite and a bigot by his own words and the work and words of people of his day.


View attachment 3925
"Am I Not A Man And A Brother?" 1787 medallion designed by Josiah Wedgwood for the British anti-slavery campaign

Now I know, some people believe there was a time when white supremacy, and its most blatant act -- slavery, was, if not right, at least innocent.

There has been no such time.

Wedgewood was an overt racist. He thought whites were the master race and as such we should lead by good example, for the lesser races. It's a Christian thing. The British abolitionists were all like this.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

He is not being called a racist by today's language. He is being called a hypocrite and a bigot by his own words and the work and words of people of his day.

Which makes him just like everyone else then and now, including his slaves. The difference is circumstance.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

He is not being called a racist by today's language. He is being called a hypocrite and a bigot by his own words and the work and words of people of his day.

Which makes him just like everyone else then and now, including his slaves. The difference is circumstance.

Well then you agree he was a hypocrite and a bigot. So what's all the hubbub? Unless your moral argument is that it is perfectly fine to be a hypocrite and a bigot just as long as other people agree with you.

And i would be so quick to think that slaves thought themselves lesser beings. Some did I am sure, but I would not take that to be a universal sentiment.

 

[arkirk]

Which makes him just like everyone else then and now, including his slaves. The difference is circumstance.

Well then you agree he was a hypocrite and a bigot. So what's all the hubbub? Unless your moral argument is that it is perfectly fine to be a hypocrite and a bigot just as long as other people agree with you.

And i would be so quick to think that slaves thought themselves lesser beings. Some did I am sure, but I would not take that to be a universal sentiment.

Activists recognize the significance of harmful circumstances and work to alleviate the harm. Hypocrites and bigots just take advantage of any circumstance that offers them gain. Lazy thinkers often just never think about whether things are fair for all parties involved. Jefferson is right in there with the other racists of his time...and the racists of our time.

 

[untermensche]

You're just assuming that Jefferson, being as intelligent as he is wouldn't engage in perverted sex. There is to my knowledge zero correlation between intelligence and sexual normality. Human sexuality does rather seem to do it's own thing. There's precious little we can do about our sex drives, regardless of how smart we are.

I am saying Jefferson was too intelligent to think it was perverted. Beyond the master slave power dynamic which made the sex rape.

Sure a smart person might have sex with a chicken, but they wouldn't be able to convince themselves it was really a person.

Also, in 1776 nobody knew whether blacks belonged to some other species or animal. Science was at best sketchy at that time. So even the smartest person alive at the time wouldn't have been able to answer that question. So Jefferson's relative intelligence (for his time) is irrelevant.

Black slaves were denied an education. They were not permitted to learn written language. They did nothing but manual labor.

So it was possible for people to mistake the effects of all this as signs of black inferiority but there was nothing to make anyone think that blacks were a different species.

They knew enough to know that different species could not produce fertile offspring.

 

[arkirk]

I am saying Jefferson was too intelligent to think it was perverted. Beyond the master slave power dynamic which made the sex rape.

Sure a smart person might have sex with a chicken, but they wouldn't be able to convince themselves it was really a person.

Also, in 1776 nobody knew whether blacks belonged to some other species or animal. Science was at best sketchy at that time. So even the smartest person alive at the time wouldn't have been able to answer that question. So Jefferson's relative intelligence (for his time) is irrelevant.

Black slaves were denied an education. They were not permitted to learn written language. They did nothing but manual labor.

So it was possible for people to mistake the effects of all this as signs of black inferiority but there was nothing to make anyone think that blacks were a different species.

They knew enough to know that different species could not produce fertile offspring.

The control measures the slave keepers used pretty much rules out their ignorance of the humanity of their slaves. Denial of education, whipping and torture for running away, and keeping a close eye on the smarter ones. You cannot tell me that slave owners were just "ignorant" about people they coexisted with for more than 100 years. They weren't just IGNORANT. They were cruel and did things to slaves we would deem cruel if done to animals. White men had sex with female slaves and saw they had kids...their kids....and they had to close their eyes to their relationship. Slavery was always a doomed enterprise...and ignorance had little to do with it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I am saying Jefferson was too intelligent to think it was perverted.

Please explain. I can't follow your logic.

Beyond the master slave power dynamic which made the sex rape.

Rape is about consensuality. And is a legal term. The person to ask for permission from was Jefferson himself. So not rape according to their laws of the day.

Also, in 1776 nobody knew whether blacks belonged to some other species or animal. Science was at best sketchy at that time. So even the smartest person alive at the time wouldn't have been able to answer that question. So Jefferson's relative intelligence (for his time) is irrelevant.

Black slaves were denied an education. They were not permitted to learn written language. They did nothing but manual labor.

So it was possible for people to mistake the effects of all this as signs of black inferiority but there was nothing to make anyone think that blacks were a different species.

They also thought women were incapable of complex thought in spite them obviously having that capacity. People are often blind to the obvious.

They knew enough to know that different species could not produce fertile offspring.

Now you're mixing in modern biology. Why?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We are talking about a guy who actually put a great deal of thought into the matter and didn't just accept the common wisdom of the day about black inferiority.

"I have supposed the black man in his present state might not be [equal
to the white man]; but it would be hazardous to affirm that equally
cultivated for a few generations, he would not become so." --Thomas
Jefferson to Chastellux, 1785.

If he figures that giving them a few generations of the same type of civilizing cultivation which whites had would pretty much eliminate all the differences between blacks and whites, that means that he doesn't see anything inherent to their nature which makes them inferior. It means that he sees them as not being able to have had the same tools which whites had to develop their potential.

"My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere
of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their
genius were not favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. I
expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their
degree of talent, it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac
Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore
lord
of the person or property of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Henri
Gregoire, 1809.

He's saying here that even if there is some inferiority with blacks, for whatever reason, that's not a reason to deny them any rights. Then he enslaved them.


Even if we don't judge Jefferson by our modern standards, we can judge him by his own and by the statements that he made on the subject. He doesn't live up to the standards that he was promoting.

 

[untermensche]

Please explain. I can't follow your logic.

Jefferson knew he was having sex with a human.

Beyond the master slave power dynamic which made the sex rape.

Rape is about consensuality. And is a legal term. The person to ask for permission from was Jefferson himself. So not rape according to their laws of the day.

Rape is about mutual consent.

The reason rape is recognized as a crime is because of morality.

A slave cannot refuse consent.

There were many in Jefferson's day who thought sex with somebody who couldn't refuse was rape, and many today who think the same.

And of course the reason Jefferson raped women was because it was legal to do so.

They knew enough to know that different species could not produce fertile offspring.

Now you're mixing in modern biology. Why?

Modern biology is genetics and evolution, also the reduction of some biological functions to chemistry.

But the concept of species existed in Jefferson's day. And the idea of fertile offspring existed too.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

All this argument about Jefferson and slavery reminds me of something.

What is it. Hmm.

Oh yea. All the times Creationists try to attack "Darwinism" by attacking Darwin's character.