is'nt it ironic....don't ya think?

[JC]

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/slavery.htm





any thoughts?


Heres a summary

http://www.monticello.org/jefferson/plantation/dig.html

[Edited by JC on 03-03-2002 at 02:29 PM]

[Sponsored Links]

[Bud Cline]

"Any thoughts"?

Just one JC.

Our forefathers who arth in heaven,
Must not have known what a paragraph was!

[cx]

Well, Bud, punctuation was definitely different then. Witness those wretched commas in our beloved Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. Clearly not because of a lack of education, as evidenced by the number of words we had to look up to verify his usage, eh?

JC:

First thought: If you give me a reading assignment and axe for my thoughts, don't give me a summary to tell me what the thoughts should be. Defeats the purpose.

Second thought: His reasoning and opinion concerning the genetic inferiority of the black Africans were not uncommon at the time and carried forward quite effectively even in the face of a good deal of modern scientific opinion to the contrary. You needn't search all that diligently to find a substantial sharing of that opinion here in the south even today, although today the expression of such opinion is generally not a matter if independent thought, nor tempered with such comment that it is advanced as "a suspicion only".

As a side note, I think you will find that Abe Lincoln, widely credited with the emancipation of the black slaves in this country, shared Jefferson's opinions on the issue.

Third thought: I would have to say that he was prescient in his prediction that the "difference in colour.......is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people". Prejudice requires no evidence or justification, and it dies hard.

Forth thought: All in all, I think the guy was a pretty rational and erudite thinker, except of course in the matter of Deity, where he suffers the same delusions shared by so many others of his day and ours. I'm still very glad to have had him on our side during the Revolution.

So, what was your intended direction of the discussion, JC? You weren't just tryin' to get Bud stirred up again, were you? :D

[flatfloor]

Wonder how his views applied to Sally Hennings?

[cx]

I think that's pretty well documented, Jim, although I can't give you a source off the top of my head. Certainly has been plenty research on the issue.

I also don't know what the consensus was, but, like so many of his contemporaries, he wasn't a TOTAL segregationist. :)

[JC]

I was'nt trying to point this into anyone direction just trying to stir up some historical discussions.After all it is balck history month.

What I got from his letter was that he indeed felt that blacks were equal(for the most part anyways) but hid that from his contemporaries for if they thought he was an abolishionist surely he would have lost his statue at the time.
The mere fact that he spent the time to address this issue and reflect on it shows his guilty conscience for having slaves.
I think he did the best he could with what he had to work with in that time in history.
Sure he keeped slaves, but perhaps he felt they were better off with him (a guy who cared about them) then with another slave owner who might indeed mistreat them. Like he was doing them a favor isolating them from the injustices at the time.
After all giving them freedom did not exactly mean they were really free at that time in history...in fact their fate might have been worse in that case.
He did help make buying slaves illegal in Virginia or something to that effect, now if he started speaking "non-sense like free all the slaves" at that time he would have been laughed at and never had the clout to make any of these changes at all.

I suspect that the affair with Sally was more the norm of the time then then not. Was it accepted back then by his peers I do not know but surely having a mixed baby on the plantation grounds, folks had to know what was going on.

Think that was the case or was he just a hypocrite.

[cx]

JC, if you read that essay and came away with the opinion that TJ thought the African slave was equal to the white man, I can certainly understand how we have misunderstandings around here.

I invite you to read it again, as will I, and then tell me again what you think his opinion was. I'm serious.

As for slaves of that period having children by the Masters, my understanding is that it was quite common. Probably not discussed much in "polite company", but not a real secret either.

So how come we have a Black History month anyway? How come we don't have an American History month? How come we don't just have an American History year? Why don't we teach our children (and adults) the facts about where this nation and ALL its people actually came from and why? How come I axe rhetorical questions? :)

[JC]

Perhaps I did read it wrong, it was pretty hard to read.

Guessing his motives and beliefs is hard to do if not impossible I would say.

No doubt he was spewing alot of inferiority talk, but he was peppering in fair treatment as well. Perhaps that is as good as can be expected in those times as for equal rights goes.

I think we have plenty of American history in our schools so we really don't need a special month for this.
Besides our version of history has been twisted around so badly in our schools over time that it is pretty much inacurate if not out right falsehoods at this point.At least half the things I learned in school on history have been proven wrong.
Our fore fathers are treated like saints when they really history shows they were pretty rotten guys, read info on George Washington and how much of a ****up he was as a commander. Should not the whole truth be taught in schools rather then the glamorized version?


Even in this day and age much prejudism still exist particularly in the bible belt. Some of these schools still have not accepted evolution as fact yet and refuse to teach it! Let alone any un-biased dialog on rascism.

Politics and religion need to stay away from schools IMHO.

[flatfloor]

Perhaps I did read it wrong, it was pretty hard to read

JC, I don't buy that, your a smart guy, you just have to slow down and read it. I have noticed you do that a lot.

I think we have plenty of American history in our schools so we really don't need a special month for this

Not so JC, what we have is a hodgepodge of world, ethnic and a smattering of American history as taught by a group of teachers on a self induced guilt trip that started in the 60's. They were determined to tell it like it was even if it wasn't. The average kid today knows diddly about American History. Try it for yourself, make up a relatively simple test of say 5-10 questions and pose it to any teenagers you know.

[Edited by flatfloor on 03-04-2002 at 09:20 AM]

[JC]

You got a point there Jim, I read the article trying not to focus on the common streotypes of the time and see why he was addressing this and what was his purpose and true feeling on the subject..perhaps I read into it stuff that was not there.
I do skim stuff over a little too quickly I am guilty of that more often then not. Too much computer speed reading.

I totally agree with your comment about the schools.

I know a case where a black girl was told ,after coming home from school, by her parents that she did'nt have to listen to what the teachers were teaching about history and to just ignore it. This was in the 70's, now she knows hardly anything about history as a result.
Her mother first husband was hung, and her Grandmother died in a hospital waiting room cuase the doctors would not treat her so apparently the mother had some serious reason to disagree with what ever they were teaching the kids at the time. This was in the twentieth century..tennesee.
Sure the teachers may want to over compensate for the sake of black children to be able to adjust into society better, but it might not be a bad thing but rather a simple focusing of attention where it is most needed.
The way we have treated blacks in this country is reprehensible and until there is a true equality, and not a forced equality, rascism is not going to go away.

[Sonnie Layne]

ooh, there's a screenplay in here somewhere...

oh ,,,duh, it's already been done.
sigh... ;)

[John Bridge]

Gonna hafta hurry up and get that history forum going. There's some people around here who need some educatin'.

You're right about Honest Abe, CX. The guy who came up with the Emancipation Proclamation did NOT believe that "negroes" were equal to whites, ONLY that they were equal in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He made his views very plain during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates when he was running for the Senate.

Thomas Jefferson just happens to be my favorite guy, and I'm not alone. More books have been written about him than about Geo. Washington. I have several books on Jefferson and only a couple on Geo.

Recent scientific results indicate that old Tom probably diddled Sally Hemmings and sired several children by her. I won't argue that anymore. I will state, however, that old Tom was in good company. It's just that the other diddlers didn't run for President of the United States. It was during that campaign that the "Sally Hemmings Affair" was brought up.

As to Jefferson's avarice toward slavery, I don't think there can be any doubt that as an institution he thought it was devastating to society and to the country. This was his concern. He was not so much aware that in keeping slaves he was violating anyone's human rights, so to speak.

Jefferson considered "red men" far superior in intellect to black men. I don't think there can be any confusion as to where white men placed in his scheme of things. And as CX has indicated, Jefferson was indeed a man of his times. He lived during his period of history. He wasn't a lot different from other educated men.

I could write a book here, I've read so much about my pal TJ. Guess I better save some for the new forum -- maybe this weekend.

So, Kelly, What do you think of TJ's religion?

[JC]

I visited Montechello as a kid, Sure would love to see it again now that I have a clue who owned it...thanks mom.

[cx]

John:

As in so many other particulars of the history of our founders, you'll have to educate me about TJ's religion. My comment about his being a Deist comes only from the article JC had us read. I don't guess I know his religion or religious affiliation.

In fact, I live very near the lovely little town of Comfort, Texas, a town founded by the Freethinkers, when the Germans were the predominant settlers in this area. There are to this day large and public disputes amongst the Christians who prevail in the area now and the few remaining Freethinkers still about. One thing I recall from the most recent dispute was the Freethinkers' claim that our own TJ, among other notables, was on their side (I am not making this up). Now, I don't know if there WERE Freethinkers back in TJ's day, but if he were one, his statements about God doing this and that would seem incongruous, no?

So. I give up, what was his religion?

Boyoboyoboy do we need us an Early American History forum! :)

[John Bridge]

TJ would not have called himself a Deist, but he might have though himself one -- maybe with a small "d."

Jefferson declared himself a Christian in public, but he did not believe that Jesus was the son of God. So he would have a hell of a time squaring himself with modern-day Christians.

When he was in retirement, Jefferson wrote/compiled a little book that has come to be known as "Jefferson's Bible." He took "a book of blank pages" and pasted in the passages from the four gospels that he thought made sense. It's no surprise to people who know Jefferson that the book is tiny.

He procured four New Testaments, one each in English, Latin, French and Greek, and clipped the appropriate passages from them and pasted them onto the blank pages. He wanted to make sure that every educated man would be able to read and understand it. TJ was, by the way, literate in those languages.

In Jefferson's Bible there is no ressurection, immaculate conception -- no miracles performed by Jesus or anyone else. He attributed the existence of these items to "sophists" and liars. He explained that in pruning passages from the books that he was separating the "diamonds from the dunhill." He reasoned that poor fishermen could not have possibly written the gospels.

He considered Jesus the "most sublime" and reasoned of all the prophets. He could call himself a Christian because he believed that what remained of Jesus' teachings (after he did his editing), was the best thing that had ever happend to organized religion. He lamented that it had been so misconstrued.

TJ did not publish his "Bible." Except for a very few friends, including John Adams and Joseph Priestly, few saw it until after his death.

Jefferson did belong to a Christian church near his home, but he didn't frequent it often. When chided about not attending regularly he was apt to remark that religion was a private affair.

He believed in religious freedom -- fought for it in his own way. He authored the Virginia Statutes for Religious Freedom when he served in the Virginia Legislature. He also wrote the famous letter which contains the words, "a strong wall of separation between church and state," from which the modern understanding takes its root.

So I don't know what to call Jefferson's religion. I do know he was not a Christian in the present sense of the word.

I also know that several others of the prominent founders were not.

[JC]

Would that make him a freethinker?


p.s. what's a freethinker?

[John Bridge]

Well, I think I'm going to let CX tell you about the Free Thinkers. Generally, they were/are a group who rejected any authority in religious matters. No dogma, no texts, nothing.

TJ was not one of them, but I'll bet he could sit down and discuss things with them. TJ wouldn't have been as radical. He did have a public image to maintain, and he took that very seriously.

[JC]

Would he be Unitarian?


what's a unitarian?

[John Bridge]

Funny you should mention Unitarianism. I say funny because I didn't figure a lot of people (except Unitarians) are aware of the concept.

Fact is, TJ was very familiar with the Unitarian movement. He was good friends with the leaders of that church in the U.S.

But hey, JC, let's wait and get all of this onto the new forum, which I think I'll set up tomorrow -- Sunday at the latest.

[JC]

Ok, but don't forget to learn me more about Unitarianism.

I grew up as a kid in Charlottesville, Virginia....Is Virginia where Unitarianisn started?

[John Bridge]

It started in England.

[cx]

JC:

I don't know much at all about the Freethinkers. Never even heard the term until I moved here and began hearing the squables up in Comfort.

I think the Freethinkers would be most accurately clasified as agnostic where religion is concerned, although the good Christians hereabouts most always refer to them as Atheists.

I know almost as much about Unitarians. Only one of them I know seems to be quite Christian, but says you don't hafta be. Yo no se.

[flatfloor]

There's a courthouse in a Philly suburb with the Ten Commandments on a plaque mounted on the front wall. Big todo about taking them down, believe it was a Freethinker started the removal process.

Local politician agreed, thinks they should come down since they are Christian in origin and might offend others. Man obviously doesn't go to the movies enough.

[John Bridge]

And here I always thought the Ten Commandments were a Hebrew thing that was adopted by the Christians. Hmm. Where the hell is Charlton Heston when you need him?

By the way, did you know there were originally 15 commandments?

[flatfloor]

Well, the movie is never the same as the book.

Ok, I think your serious, what else have I done wrong and what happened to the other five?

[John Bridge]

Moses came down from the mountain and announced that there was good news and bad news.

"What's the good news, Moses?"

"The good news is that when I went up there the Man had fifteen commandments in mind and I talked him down to only ten."

"What's the bad news, Moses?"

"It's that one about adultry. I couldn't talk him out of it."

;)

[flatfloor]

Whew1 You had me worried.:)

[Rob Z]

Where did you live in Charlottesville?

What years?

[JC]

I lived there from age 2 to age 9 so I am not going to be much help with any directions or addresses unfortunaltly. I would have to ask my mother for that..although I do remember the name Earlyville if that sounds correct(might not have lived there but just remember the name).
There was a Harley Davidson shop near my house if that helps..did'nt pay to much attention to street names at that age.

Moved to PA in 1979 after my father died, he was an engineer for Murry electric but most family was from PA so we moved up here when that happened.

[John Bridge]

I'm going to move this thread to the new History Forum before we get off on a tangent and forget what started it.

[Rob Z]

JC

Earlysville is a bit outside of town. I don't remember any HD dealerships around C'ville. I was there from '83-'90.

John, there was some interesting stuff going on in and around Charlottesville during the Civil War (for Kelly: "War of Northern Aggression"). Maybe I can dig out some of the good books I have about the area during that time. It may take some time...I need to build some bookshelves down here in my office!

[JC]

Airport acres, right of off route 29, east of skyline drive, near Earlysville. That's where the Murry company was located I guess. That what my mother is telling me. Sound familiar?

[Rob Z]

I painted a house back in there, JC.

You wouldn't recognize the area now...it has changed a lot.

[cx]

Hey, youins bowdark skulls, this is s'pose to be a History forum. The years 1983-1990 around Charlotsville (whereverthehellthatis) don't hardly qualify as Early American, know what I mean? :)

Make'em straighten up, John.

[JC]

Which house? The neighborhood was like a big circle off of the highway(two entrances) and it had one short road in the middle of it. I lived at the end of that short road on the left.
I am sure it has changed alot since then!

small world

[John Bridge]

I'm going to try to reclaim this thread and head it back to its original direction. JC had asked about Unitarianism.

A Unitarian is a person who believes in one God, and who rejects the idea of the Trinity. Hence, Jesus cannot be the Son of God, and there is no Holy Ghost. A Unitarian, however, might be just as apt to describe himself as a "Christian" as not. Some do, some don't. I've known a few, and as CX noted, they may not agree with one another in matters of religion, which I suppose makes them quite ordinary. :D

Jefferson was good friends with Joseph Priestly, who was a British scientist and a noted Unitarian theologian. Priestly was the discoverer of oxygen. He was the highest ranking (for lack of a better term) Unitarian in the U.S., having settled here in 1794. Priestly was one of the few people privy to Jefferson's intent to edit the Gospels.

TJ once said, "there is not a young man now living in the U.S. who will not die an Unitarian."

Was Jefferson a Unitarian? Had you been able to ask him, he would have told you to mind your own business -- that a man's religion was a private matter.

Jefferson was also great friends with Dr. Benjamin Rush, whom we discussed in another post. Rush was famous at the time and was a well respected medical doctor and scientist. Religion-wise, he was a "Universalist." A Universalist is one who believes that salvation is extended to everyone regardless of his or her religious sect. Universalists also count themselves as Christians. Rush is one of the others who was aware of what Jefferson was up to.

In 1961 the Universalists merged with the Unitarians -- sort of. ;)

[JC]

I think orthodox Cristians and Catlolics are the only religion on earth that believe in the Trinity.

Any other distingishing characteristics of unitarianism?

[Sonnie Layne]

duhhh, what did you jis say?

[Kirk Downey]

John,

You are an amazingly informed man. I have had a long interest in Jefferson but haven't had the time to really explore my interest. Two Questions: one statement

Doesn't Jefferson's authoring the "Summary View of the Rights of British Americans" qualify Mr. Jefferson as a pamphleteer?

Can't we explain Jefferson's circumspect attitude towards his revolutionary exploits (leadership) by the fact that nearly half the signatories of the Declaration, as I understand it, were killed or hung in the revoultion; also by the fact that the survival of the republic was in no way assured until the close of the War of 1812?

Jeffeson was a slave owner. In one of Jefferson writings that I read, he used the phrase, "reduced to a state of nature," to describe serious poverty. Homelessness was a serious threat to survival in Jefferson's time. There weren't many doorways to sleep in or paved streets to sleep on. Homelessness meant you were living like a dog, or other animal. Dread of that fate seems consistent with his sense of responsibility to his slaves. While we can condemn him as being patronizing at best and suffering from sinister noblese oblige in the worst, it may be too harsh to condemn him for being a properly, propertied member of the aristocracy. He fought hard for inclusion of anti-slavery language in the declaration.

Be kind to Jefferson, he authored the most powerful sentence in the political history of humanity: "We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Until that sentence, Kings only granted rights to their Nobility and those rights were only secured at the point of a sword in the Magna Carta. Us commoners had no rights until these united states wrested them from the monarch's death grip. Ask any Irishman what they think of the English, they'll tell you about nobility.

Kirk out

God is Love

[John Bridge]

Wait a minute. Gotta get another brew.

Okay, got it.

Kirk, I'll give just a little ground on the pamphlet issue. I've heard Jefferson called a "tractarian." He did write newspaper "tracts" anonymously, along with a bunch of other Virginians. But Jefferson was never a "pamphleteer" in the sense that Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer. Paine's Common Sense, for example, sold nationally -- around 300,000 copies were distributed. It was THE all-time best seller for years to come. Right up there with the Bible.

Jefferson's "Summary View" was preceeded by a similar document he presented to the Virginia "Freeholders," who encouraged him to submit it to the general convention at Williamsburg. He spent a number of weeks re-witing, but he was in ill health and could not attend the the convention. Instead he delivered a copy each to Payton Randolph and to Patrick Henry.

TJ writes in his autobiography:

"Peyton Randolph infomed the convention he had recieved such a paper from a member prevented by sickness from offering it in his place, and he laid it on the table for perusal. It was read generally by the members, approved by many, but thought too bold for the present state of things; but they printed it in pamphlet form . . . It found it's way to England . . . and in that form ran rapidly thro' several editions."

Pamphleteer? Okay.

[Kirk Downey]

John,

One of the great things about your forum is the calibre of the humor, discussions and information. Few university professors of history have the level of information you have at your command.

Have you read Frederick Merk who writes a good deal about our westward expansion? He may be out of print but he's worth the trouble of digging. (Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History, History of the Westward Movement)

Kirk out
God is Love

[John Bridge]

Kirk,

I have the luxury of not being a university professor. ;)

A history buff is able to change directions at the drop of a hat. I haven't gotten to westward expansion, except on a very limited basis, because I just haven't had the time.

I've got a brand new book about Lewis and Clark that's gathering dust. Haven't cracked the cover. One of these days . . .

As with a lot of other people, TJ is my hero. He's the guy who said it like it is. He was the sharpest cookie out there -- in company of some of the worlds smartest and best educated men. He had his share of imperfections, no question, but he's still my man, and I've spent more time on him than anyone else.

Madison is number two in my book. GW trails along in third.

I hope you will continue this exchange. I respect you as an educator. You have knowledge I can get out of you for nothing if I'm crafty enough. :)

[cx]

Well, John, I'm glad to see you bring up Little Jimmy Madison here. He's always been my number one on the hero list from that era, although I can't claim to be a serious student. Had a good head on him, a good pen, and large juevos, but that third could well be said for that whole damn group of radicals, eh?

Pour it on, Kirk. We sponges are await. :) To paraphrase ol' Albert, we may not always like being taught, but we always like to learn.

C(sorry he'll soon be missing this)X

[John Bridge]

"Little Jimmy Madison"

For those less versed than Kelly, James Madison was about five foot four inches tall. He had a very large brain, though. :)

James Madison, the fourth president of the U.S., is called the Father of the Constitution.

JM and TJ were good amigos.