In another thread, quick and I were discussing in a calm, reasoned and polite way the pros and cons of one of America's founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson:



To which I replied:



Which brought this response:



Which is when I determined rather than continuing this serve and volley in a thread where it wasn't relevant, The History Forum was the appropriate place to thrash it out.

For my part I consider Jefferson an exemplary person. Perhaps a true visionary in every sense of the world. However, he was still very much a product of his time in his desire to free one group of human beings while enslaving and exploiting another. Jefferson, like most famous men and women, has to be considered in his totality and not simply his accomplishments.

The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so of cold, than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with more of it. They seem to require less sleep. A black, after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.

The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. . .

I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications.

Excerpted from "Notes on the State of Virginia" link

quick asserts only a "fool" tries to understand the social standards of 1789 through today's contemporary values. I disagree. If we are to accept that documents such as The Constitution or The Bill of Rights have any worth today (and I believe with confidence most Americas think they do), then we cannot so easily dismiss the context in which they were written and how Jefferson was a contradiction.

Historian Roger Wilkins wrote in a TIME article about Jefferson, "This man is problematic because his profound racism extinguished any impulse to act forcefully against slavery that his sure knowledge that it was a great evil (which he understood to hurt whites as well as blacks) might have generated in him. His life provides a powerful reminder to avoid absolutes whether in judging human beings (alive or dead), the origins of our nation or issues and people in our contemporary politics."

Professor Clarence E. Walker takes a differing view, "The most impressive thing about Jefferson was the Declaration of Independence, that is, its language. The language of the Declaration and the Constitution provided the intellectual framework for black people to stake a claim on American citizenship. I do not see anything contradictory in his belief in freedom and being a slave holder. Blacks for Jefferson and others of his class were not civilized. Jefferson thought that black people were physically unattractive and mentally inferior to whites, as he makes clear in his Notes on the State of Virginia."

link 2

The Question for Debate: Is the greatness of Thomas Jefferson tarnished by his positions on race or is it unfair to critique Jefferson by today's evolved standard?

Is the greatness of Thomas Jefferson tarnished by his positions on race or is it unfair to critique Jefferson by today's evolved standard?

Well obviously he is tarnished by his attitude which contradicts modern polictical thought. Racism is now perceived as wrong where as in Jeffersons time it was still open for debate.

One can certainly examine, or even judge, a man like Thomas Jefferson by todays standards. Morality is not behlden to any time frame. If you believe slavery is wrong then it is wrong, regardless of its legal status in seveteen twenty when ever.

Then again, one should remember that hindsight conveys its own distortions.

I think Thomas Jefferson was/is a splendid example of the irrational contradictions that make up humanity and we should always ponder upon our own faults when debating those of historical people. Are we, am I so much better than them? Do I really have the moral authority to judge another person? If my life were to be laid bare for examination by future generations would it stand up to their scrutiny? I am as fair minded and as even handed as I can be, yet I may still be seen as a degenerate monster by my grandchildren for my nationalist tendencies or my wont to appreciate the human form in art. Who can know what will consititute morality in a hundred years time?

All I can do is my utmost to exist within the moral understandings I share with my fellow human beings, but even that is impossible for different people have different values. I'll be damned if I am going to share the morality of Islam for example, so future generations of Europeans, having possibly been converted to Islam, may regard me and those like me as evil (as so many of them already do).

Should I care about that? Should I moderate myself according to what other people as yet unborn or otherwise might think? I think not.

Thomas Jefferson did great deeds in his life time. On the whole, I think these greatly out weigh any perceived defects in his character because the lasting effects of his good deeds are still with us where as his dubious out look on race makes no difference to us today.

I think this is an excellent reply, and I agree with it fully. Thomas Jefferson, as well as his contemporaries, has a lot of qualities that one can admire and base their life upon. His unyielding belief in liberty, his work towards achieving that goal, and his service to the country are exemplary. However, like many great people throughout history, he was not perfect. He lived in a racist time where slavery was common practice and a part of every day life. Not to make excuses, but I believe that our environment affects us in the same manner that we affect our environment. This doesnt mean that he and others are not responsible for their beliefs or actions, but it puts things in a broader context. Can we sincerely judge the societies of the past? The Roman Empire? The Middle Ages? If we took great people from those periods we will find that a lot of what made people great, we would find abhorrent. Values have changed and so has morality. So while it is easy to label Jefferson a racist and a hypocrite we have to remember that much of Jefferson's myth was brought upon by others. He was just a man. He did some good and for a while that's all we focused on. The unearthing of new facts shows a slightly different story. However despite his many shortcomings, his contributions to humanity and the liberty are important. He may have been a racist and a slaveowner, but he helped create the mechanism by which freedom for all was possible. This may or may not have been his intention, but it is his legacy.

Is the greatness of Thomas Jefferson tarnished by his positions on race or is it unfair to critique Jefferson by today's evolved standard?

History is viewed backward but lived forward, as they say. I don't believe it's fair to criticize Jefferson for racist, sexist, or homophobe (just assuming) views. He was a product of the time and I wouldn't expect him to desire for women to vote or slaves to be set free. There is no way in the world that he would perceive women, slaves, or Indians as equal to white men. And I doubt that the nation would have survived and/or flourished at the time without some form of slavery to keep it running. It would have certainly looked very different from an economic perspective. Just as Abraham wouldn't have had so many sons that fathered a race of people way back in the day unless polygamy were available and morally acceptable. Humanity's concept of morality has changed a lot through the years.

I DO think that it's fair to criticize the formal caste system that developed after slavery was abolished. Unlike slavery during Jefferson's time, that did go directly against moral principle, and it lasted virtually unquestioned for over a century until Rosa Parks attempted to sit in the white section of the bus one day. And it is also fair to criticize the informal caste system that remained even after the 'whites only' signs were removed (consider that Guess Who's Coming To Dinner was revolutionary in the late 1960s...and they had to the Adonis-like Poitier rather than a more average looking black man to make it palatable to viewers), and in certain cases exists to this day.

Most of our so-called “founding fathers” - when viewed candidly - were colorful enough characters without our adding varnish to them. Franklin, who is considered to be the “First American” came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson, with all his slaves (he owned over 600 during his lifetime), was hardly the liberal reformer we would have him be; and despite the efforts of modern-day Christians to convert him, the truth is that he was a deist, who had no qualms about revising the Bible to suit himself. See The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820). The “times that try men’s souls” bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself persona non grata in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful (rather than critical) thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt’s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his using cheap paint.

I think a position like this would be unassailable - If there weren't people who, even in Jefferson's day, didn't know that slavery was immoral. I come from the Mennonite tradition, and our people were certainly abolitionist from the get-go. Now, would your average Mennonite or freethinker who was against slavery have viewed blacks as equals? A harder question. I just don't know. I do know that my ancestors had their own contradictions. They may have been enlightened enough to understand immediately that slavery was evil, but they certainly held their women to be lesser beings. Still do, to a large extent.

But my point is, if there were whites in Jefferson's time who were able to have the moral clarity to see the wrongness of slavery - and there were - then it is fair for us to judge him on these issues. How can a man who thought so much of freedom have had such a large blind spot? Certainly as one of the more "benevolent" slave owners of the area (I use the quotes with just a little sarcasm, since, well, it's sort of hard to really have benevolent slave owning) he would see that the black men and women were human beings. It seems to me, if he thought liberty was so important, he could have made the simple leap to include blacks in that.

But he didn't think liberty for human beings was that important, really. He thought liberty for wealthy white males was very, very important. And within that narrow constraint, he was a genius.

Thomas Jefferson had a significant influence on the founding of the nation; albeit his ideas were not adopted by the framers of the Constitution. Jefferson was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. (Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.) Jefferson’s main contribution was the Louisiana Purchase, which opened the way to westward expansion, and the rise of America to become one of the great nations of the world. The epitaph on his tomb recites: "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom, & Father of the University of Virginia." He died bankrupt; but he nevertheless left a rich legacy for all of us.

Is the greatness of Thomas Jefferson tarnished by his positions on race or is it unfair to critique Jefferson by today's evolved standard?

Jefferson was great for his statesmanship. In his private life he was reputedly uncomfortable with the idea of slavery, yet it didn't stop him from having sexual relations, consensual or not, with at least one of his female slaves. That puts him squarely into the camp of "I don't like it, but everyone's doing it, so...."

White men with money and property could live like kings back then, but it was certainly but one of nearly innumerable instances in history where this has been true.

I am far more unhappy with Christopher Columbus who, after he found out that he hadn't found another route to far East, decided to plunder and enslave the inhabitants of the islands he did find. If the natives did not bring a quota of gold to the Spaniards, they would have their hands cut off. Columbus did this because he could. And yet, there are people today who still celebrate Columbus Day and a Catholic lay organization, the Knights of Columbus, whose members are proud of their namesake. Go figure.

I am glad for the contributions Jefferson made to the establishment of our government, but I am ashamed of the fact that he was a slaveowner. While it was a common custom in a society that tolerated slavery and institutionalized rape, he didn't have to own slaves.

Is the greatness of Thomas Jefferson tarnished by his positions on race or is it unfair to critique Jefferson by today's evolved standard?

Why not simply apply a moral standard that was written more than a thousand years before the man was born, and a standard that we can safely assume he was familiar with: Not there is Jew nor Greek, not there is slave nor freeman, not is male and female. As otherwise concerns "greatness", well, you'll have to define what you mean by that, I mean, I've heard it said that the poor man cries out and God listens. So what does it mean to be "great"? Lastly, if one does not otherwise even think in terms of "greatness", then no need to build an idol and no need for that idol to tarnish with the passage of time.

Then why do we need to live by the morals of the bible that were (supposedly) written 2000 years ago? Why apply those morals to modern society? Are they even really moral in the modern context?

If we hold ourselves to morals written 2000 years ago- why don't we hold the men who wrote those moral ideas to the same standard?

I had this discussion with my wife and her fairly negative views on the US (she is young, she has no frame of reference except the bad things her country has done in her area while she was growing up)

My point to her was this- yes, man is usually very bad to other men, but, regardless of the time they came from, rise above thier upbringing, rise above the realities of thier culture, and do great things for all humanity that comes after them, even though they themselves, in thier personal lives, do not rise to thier very ideas of greatness. History is replete with great men that started revolutionary ideas that really did live up to thier own ideals and ideas. Progress marches forward, and is sent forward by imperfect men in an imperfect age.

It took 150 years from the time slavery ended legally in this country to the point that we could even argue that black men were as free as white men.

Jefforson was a flawed man, with great ideas, and wrote some of the greatest ideas and treatise on freedom mankind has ever seen- but didn't stop him from getting a little "dark strange" now and again.

Amen to that, friend.

As a believer myself I find the entire concept of a morality so flexible as to chalk up things like rape, racism, and chattel slavery to "historical context"....

..difficult.
Is the greatness of Thomas Jefferson tarnished by his positions on race or is it unfair to critique Jefferson by today's evolved standard?
Every man is responsible for his own beliefs and actions.

Benjamin Franklin was a fine example of a contemporary who showed moral courage despite "his times"

Jefferson himself knew what he was doing was morally wrong and continued to do so anyway.

No excuse for that.

His greatness, though considerable, is necessarily diminished.

I think this goes to the heart of morality and ethics itself Turnea- and why I believe Judeo-Christian-Islamic societies as inherently immoral when they try to apply the principles of thier beliefs to secular societies.

I believe there are some moral absolutes- not many, but just a couple:

1) It is ALWAYS immoral to own another human being. Always. However- this is not even mentioned as a sin in the bible- I mean, the dang thing has pages and pages devoted to dietary sins, but gawd is okay with slavery? Puh-lease. - the entire concept of morality from christianity falls apart right there- it is okay to own poeple in the bible. So much for morality coming from christian sources

2) Pedophilia- sex with pre-pubescent children- always wrong.

But this is about Thomas Jefforson- who, at least, wasn't so hypocritical as to consider himself a man of god.

He is still a genius- but genius is also frequently very flawed, why should we expect any less than some of those same flaws and inhumanity to man in Jefforson?

They change. We absolutely do not live by all of the morals that were established 2000+ years ago today. When's the last time you sacrificed a lamb on the altar? Ever eaten shellfish or pork? Do you ever expect interest when you loan money?



The above is a recent sentiment. Women and children were also typically considered property...arguably for much longer than slaves were. It was stated explicitly in the whole 'love, honor and obey' marriage vow. Few thought that strange at all until female emancipation, it was simply a fact of life.



Is there some evidence that Jefferson had sex with prepubescent children? That's a part of history I hadn't heard. I'm hoping there is a point to this portion, and you aren't just offering a disturbingly short list of all things you personally believe to be wrong (if there's grass on the field, play ball eh? ).

Morals - whose morals?, and who are we to judge him?

“These little things are great to little man.”
- Oliver Goldsmith, The Traveller, line 42

No to the first and no to the second ...
...and no to the third for throughly secular reasons.

Without getting into a theological argument, I agree that sacraments, fine doctrinal points, and other expressions of basic points of morality change.

However something as basic an forcing yourself upon a woman, slave or free, has never been even implicitly sanctioned in any mainstream Christian morality. Neither has chattel slavery.

Morality demands exceptional behavior in most religious views. We acknowledge that most people are simply immoral.

It is therefore no excuse that "everybody else is doing it" which is a rough translation of the "product of his times" argument.

It is true that those, like Franklin, who recognized the immorality of Jefferson's actions, were few.

..but they were not absent.

I agree there are mitigating circumstances...

...I disagree with the idea that these are exonerating.

The Question for Debate: Is the greatness of Thomas Jefferson tarnished by his positions on race or is it unfair to critique Jefferson by today's evolved standard?


Since NT didn't read my link, I will tell you that the substance of it, and those reports linked in it, are that Jefferson may not have fathered any children by Sally Hemings, but rather his brother Randolph more likely did. The DNA reports only give a high likelyhood of some Jefferson DNA in the Hemings line, not that this DNA originated with Thomas. There is considerable evidence linking Randolph, including a series of letters between him and his older brother and some circumstantial evidence. Of course, none of it is conclusive, and any one of 8 Jefferson males, from a DNA perspective, could have fathered the child.




http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/whm/bio/heming_s.htm


However, as Jefferson was a widower most of his life, it would not be surprising if he had sex with other women. Sally was a 3/4 white mulatto, which could have been a contributing factor to a relationship. She apparently could easily pass for a white woman. She did travel to France with Jefferson and several other slaves, including her brother, when he was a foreign envoy there. There is NO evidence he raped anyone, including Sally Hemings.

In all likelyhood, we may never know exactly what happened. However, it is clear that Mr. Jefferson's modern-day critics, when he is no longer here to defend himself or to explain what may or may not have happened, take some considerable joy in deriding him in a waive of scandal that would do the Enquirer proud. Such critics often do not make a sincere effort simply to know the truth.

But, be that as it may:

Jefferson's view of black intelligence and nature was fully in keeping with others of his era. The 19th century view of the "White Man's Burden" arose from a sincere belief that blacks were simple minded and needed special help from the white race to be productive and socialized. While this may seem silly today, it was the standard belief. People of this era also believed illness was caused by bad blood and when ill one's blood needed to be sucked out by leeches, and women were deemed to frail and unfit to vote. Say what you will, Jefferson is a product of his time, as others have said, and indeed he was human, with all human frailties and capacity for mistakes. Indeed, I personally have always been disappointed by his apparent religious beliefs. But....

I won't bore you with more recounting of his considerable genius and the huge debt that any American owes him for both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, among other things; instead, I'll simply suggest you take a long weekend to visit Monticello and take the tour. If you can, take the long tour. Then, go see the University of Virginia in nearby Charlottesville. Then, when you have walked the ground he trod and seen that which he created, reflect and make your own conclusions as to his genius and stature.

I am still waiting for evidence from CruisingRam on this one as well. I have read many biographies on our founding fathers and have yet to see this one.

A for Jefferson being a racist for owning slaves.. You would also have to add: George Washington, James Madison(Father of the constitution) and Benjamin Franklin(which he fought against starting in 1763) into the mix.

Surely you jest?

The Catholic church, which for centuries was the sole custodian of Christianity told the Scandinavians they had to stop enslaving other Christians because to do so was a sin. It was however perfectly alright to enslave non Christians, also to destroy their tribes and occupy their lands. The northern Crusades were all under taken under direct sanction and orders from Rome and legalized by Papal bulls.

The Catholic church often made a big stink when slavery took place in medieval Europe, especially when the said slaves were Catholic monks and priests, but as can be seen by any closer examination of what happened when the Portugese and Spaniards arrived in South America, Christians to a man, the Catholic church was more than happy to sanction the ownership of slaves on the plantations which generated funding, funding which often found its way back into the coffers of the Catholic church.

Link.

Now you could argue with hindsight that the Catholic church does not have the authority to speak on behalf of God, but not if you are a true Catholic christian. The Pope speaks on behalf of the Almighty, and they always have. If the Pope said it was alright to own slaves, then God was saying it was alright to own slaves.

The period of time in which slavery has been implicitly sanctioned by mainstream Christian morality is longer than the period of time in which it has not. It is a latter day fantasy to argue that mainstream Christian morality has never sanctioned slavery...

...or burning men and woman on stakes because they were witches to save their souls from damnation.

This is indeed a very interesting and challenging debate, or maybe not....


I wish to start from the bottom here, and say some words about Pedophilia.


We all know what we think about pedophiles, the lowest scum of the earth, the slimiest slime on the wall, if evne we rank them that high. Capital Punishment to nice, Torture not enough, etcetera. If there is a specific case of "criminal" or "act" that makes me see red, its pedophiles.

But wait, is it really "pedophiles" we hate? The definition of a "child" is different from people to people, place to place. In United States an 18 year old man could be defined as "child", whiles in NZ a 17 year old man is seen as a grown up man who can care for himself, as our society make sure to bring up our offspring in such a way. So there is a problem with the "age definition" of what a "child" is.

And what about a 25 year old woman loving a 75 year old man? There is a 50 year difference, that must be disgusting when we use our "pedophile coloured spectacles", No? Else the voice of hypocrisy must be spoken, must it not?


In ancient greece, what we call "pedophilia" was a normal part of the society. If a man fancied a young boy, he would court him in a suitable way, and through thus could have a relationship with the boy, if he accepted. And here it is, the main thing, Its not Pedophilia we hate, its the forced Pedophilia we really mean. A man or woman forcing himself/herself upon an innocent child, that is what we disgust and hate.


I think we need to see it with timeline included, how the societies worked, and what was good or bad. If a man forced himslef upon a young boy in ancient greece, he would have been condemed, consent was needed.




Now, lets go further into this debate, pointing to the fact of Racism and Bigotry. As Moist pointed out earlier, the Church endorsed the use of slaves (in this case Africans, Incas, Mayans, Native Americans). To say that Christianity did not support it would go against printed fact. There is no excuse here, this is just how it was, black people where "less worth" then "white CHRISTIAN" ones.

Racism? Of course, thats what the word means, racism refers to the fact of considering your own "race" superior to one or others. If someone says that "the violence in our country is because of all the immigrants", that is a racist statement, as the one saying thus, consider himself superior to "the immigrants". But have we changed? Very little. The United States today is still enormously racist, what school you gone to, color of your skin, family relations etcetera.

Today we have in New Zealand a group called Maoris. They are constantly complaining about "segregation" and "discrimination". My subjective view of them? Theat they are the ones creating problems. We support them (the Kiwi community) and we do our best, but they continue to create problems, everything from terrorist acts to media slander. Are Kiwis racist against the maori culture? No! But we have become tired of the constant bickering as the more we give, the more they take. I never met a Kiwi who consider themselves SUPERIOR to a maori, but i do met lots of them who do not like them and how they act.

We where once racist, as in the U.S and Europe, we separated and made slaves, but we changed, and evolved, but its important to understand ones history.



But thats just my take on it. Sorry for all the babbling.

-JE

Moist?

Its important not to get side tracked here (though its often easy to do). This thread deals specifically with one man and his relationship to slavery and black people.

Turnea wrote; ...which I (more or less) disagree with. I do not 'acknowledge that most people are simply immoral' for I do not agree that morality is so easily projected onto people in the past from the comfort of the present.

Of course you can do this. You can pass judgement on these people who have no means of defending nor explaining their actions, but in doing so one must take all factors into account or be seen as biased.

Turnea does not do this. He chooses a subjective view of morality in Jeffersons time, one in which Christianity has never sanctioned slavery or allowed people to 'force themselves onto a woman' and passes judgement accordingly. He prefers to explain away myriad centuries of Papal sanctions, heretical burnings, crusades, slavery and violence in the name of God as 'sacraments, fine doctrinal points, and other expressions of basic points of morality change'.

Tell that to the bald, scalded, scarred and branded woman, her feet and hands shackled and her fingers mangled into a pulp as she faced the auto de fe on the charge of being a witch!

The real poblem with all this lies in the word exoneration. You can only exonerate some one if you have the moral authority to pass judgement upon them, and as far as I can make out, Christian morality, which it appears is being offered as a basis for such a judgement, does not confer such moral authority for Christian morality itself caused far more suffering and violence against people than Thomas Jefferson ever did.

Christians today who seek to pretend otherwise are deluding themselves. We do have the moral authority to pass judgement on Thomas Jefferson. Any such judgement is a personal, and highly subjective perspective.

edited to moderate a sentence

Haha, a freudian slip perhaps? No no, i just finished Terry Pratchetts "Making Money", and the main character must have grown on me, i do apologize Moif.




Like i tried to explain earlier, to give specific judgement on a person on a specific time using todays subjective opinion does not work. As with pedophilia, womans rights, beating dogs or the taste of chocolate icecream, it is all subjective, and no "truth" to it even if this is what people want to hold to even when the boat is sinking.


But it does irritate me when someone uses religious excuses and claim something that goes against their own religion (such as someone saying that Christianity is against something it actually promoted).


Thomas Jefferson, a visionary? Perhaps, i myself see no special about him in neither view or act, a racist? Of course, he considered himself superior to Africans and other none-whites, and perhaps even none-Christians, this was how it worked in the "western" world during this period of time.



-JE

CR:

Jefferson did not do any "rising" that I can see. Before he wrote his Declaration he had slaves and after he wrote his Declaration he had slaves. And so the only lesson that need be learned here is that you not project your own thoughts into Thomas Jefferson's head. All men. Didn't include his black slaves. Or so reports the circumstance of his life.

The next lesson to be learned is simply that you need to learn how to read documents. Ever hear of this thing that we call "context"? With context in mind, does the Torah say that its God requires that one must own a slave? No, the Torah says no such thing. And what period of time are we talking about here, is this the beginning of human history under discussion, or some later point in time? Later point in time. Query then, why is the subject matter of slavery being addressed? The subject matter of slavery is being addressed because humans, all on their very own and without any word or encouragement from the Torah's God, have made other humans their slaves [or so reports the Torah].

That's the singular point that you don't seem get [and you're not alone]. This word on slavery isn't being uttered in reference to acts and/or events that occurred at or near inception [as it were]. But if one goes there, as the Torah does report on acts and events at and near inception, well, in this regard the Torah says: And created God ha-adam in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. So, good examiner of documents that you are, what is the lesson of the Torah? The same as my Lord's: Because of the hardness of your hearts Moshe permitted you... And we say that because in the intervening period when the Torah's God gave no word, or so reports the Torah, humans had made other humans their slaves, and so slavery needed to be addressed. And so the question for the student of the Torah is, just who are you, claimed servant of the Torah's God, to despise the image of the Torah's God such that you would make that image your slave?

In other words, the Torah reports that its God gave the standard at inception, but that it was us, and Jefferson, who left us with the circumstance wherein just about every society of humans alive at that time had slaves. And so what was the Torah's God to do? Hold that thought, since we'll come back later to the question, how does one change the morality of a people.

Some soul here otherwise used the phrase "chattel slavery". The Torah does not, repeat, does not permit "chattel slavery". And, yes, I know, the text says that "he is your property", but problem with that is, when one finds lost property, one is supposed to return the lost property to its owner [see Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution]. But here, the slave fleeing into Israel is treated as free. So the slave is not chattel. We also do not "liberate" chattel [once every seven years for Jewish slaves]. And have you considered the notion that with the announcement of the ordinance reporting that every slave escaping into Israel is treated as free, that the Torah's God was inviting the slaves in other lands to flee to freedom in Israel? What does that say?

And have you considered the economic implications here? Presumably, one likes to have trade and travel between nations and peoples. How does that work here when the foreigner relies on slave labor, which may very well include personal attendants? Is he to bring his slaves into Israel so that they might run away and claim asylum? So whatever else that you might be inclined to think here, don't think that this "gawd"'s words on slavery were not without cost to the proponents of slavery. And maybe the other thought here is that humans, while emotional, are not always irrational and so maybe Mr. Slavemaster treats his slaves kindly so that they won't flee to Israel and freedom.

Another thought here is that we have two sets of rules, one for the foreign slave and one for the Jewish slave. And so there's tension in the air, or there ought to be, since the other ordinance reported by the Torah is: You shall have one law, both for the native son and the foreigner who lives among you.

And for more on, Be Kind To Slaves Week, have you read those words about what might happen if the Jewish slave loves his master and doesn't want to leave when his seven years are up? Now why wouldn't the slave want to leave? Because his master treated him better than anyone else ever did and so his needs were well cared for and so why go? And why would the Torah even mention this desire? I mean, free the Jewish slave at 7 years and if he wants to stay, well, it's his choice, and so he can stay if he wants to, what do I care? And so maybe it isn't even necessarily about the master being all that great, but maybe when compared to other prospects once free, well, the master does have the duty to care for his slave and so maybe the option is extended so as to give the slave the llegal right to choose the better alternative? Ever consider that? What was life like for most people back then? Nasty, brutish, and short? But if it's true that the Torah's God gave the slave the legal right to choose in his best interest, well, then what does that say about the Torah's God in relation to both the slave and the institution of slavery itself?

And so you know, we have the Torah's God giving the Ten Words, then we have some instruction on how to build an altar, and then we have a break. Then we have the "ordinances". They start off with the Hebrew slave. But shouldn't the slave, as a class, be addressed last since slaves, as a class, are last on the human totem pole? Since you spoke of Christianity in relation to slavery, is addressing the slave first a hint of what my Lord meant when he said, the first shall be last and the last shall be first?

And so you in reading the document, any document, you might want to ponder the context and ask yourself some questions before you expound on the meaning of those documents [here, your claim that the Torah's God is some big fan of slavery]. And what was it again that you want me to own up to? I can't own up to your inability to consider history and context when reading a document, as that failing is all your own. I otherwise have no problem in admitting that any number of humans calling themselves "Christian", a rather large number, also failed to consider history and context in relation to their faith and so accomplished that abomination that we call holding persons in involuntary servitude. But that doesn't make the Torah bad, it makes those people bad. Or you might say that the Torah is witness against them.

The only remaining item here is your rather erroneous belief in this thing that you call, "progress". Sorry, CR, but you've been brainwashed by the US public education system. There is no such thing as "progress", unless by "progress" you simply and only mean to say that time moves inexorably forward, and without any consideration of "morality".

Your belief in progress otherwise makes you an exponent of American genocide, as in our case "progress" was summed in two words, Manifest Destiny. And since the indigenous peoples of this land were in the way of your progress, they had to either be extirpated or pushed aside. And now simply recall those words from the interview of professor James Loewen:

"I have to say that the task of puncturing myths was much harder for me in Vermont than in Mississippi. It's fairly easy for someone coming into Mississippi from outside to see what the white supremacists have gotten wrong about the state's past. But myths about Indians are national myths -- or lies. They are harder to detect, because almost all of us "know" things about Native Americans that are wrong. So it's harder for us, especially for non-Indians, to step outside our education and culture and realize when we are making the same kinds of mistakes.

This is particularly true because we have a national myth that we might even call an archetype -- the archetype of progress. It tells us that the U.S. started out great and that we've been getting better in every way ever since. I really do believe that is the underlying myth that provides the basic story line of American history as it is taught in most K-12 schools -- and certainly as taught in the textbooks that are presented K-12."

Yeah, progress, a myth that brainwashed you holds dear. And also call yours an ideology of contradiction and fallacy. The one fallacy is your notion of progress and part of the contradiction is simply that here you are on AD saying that we are moving inexorably forward to some better state but yet you agree with the idea of global warming, won't deny a rather massive ecodestruction, and you otherwise wonder just which humans will have enough potable water to drink in the not so distant future. And so here you are, speaking of progress, when you believe in a global warming, ecodestruction, and a shortage of potable water that has us on the road to oblivion. In case you never got the word, there's nothing more moral than our mere survival. So please, rethink your notion of progress.


Moif:

Let me interrupt my words to CR to address you directly and so please see:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

And so you paint with too broad a brush respecting the Roman Catholic Church.

And like it or not, all of what you mentioned has as witness against it that collection of works that we Christians call the Old Testament and that collection of works that we Christians call the New Testament. Those works more or less define the faith. And so there is no delusional at all. You might otherwise just as well have said that if the US Congress declares war for entirely selfish and immoral reasons, that the US Constitution is somehow to blame for the sin since it authorizes Congress to declare war[s] [as that is exactly the premise that you have on offer here]. Simply because I say that I am Christian does not make my acts "Christian". And that not only applies to bad acts, it applies to good ones as well, I mean, for all you know, maybe my sacred books forbid all acts of charity. So read the book and examine the act [or omission], and if the act [or omission] matches the book, then you can say that the book is at fault as well. Lastly, though I rather dispute that there were only two, the rest makes the point for me:

"We have been unable to find anyone other than St. Augustine and Bartholomew De Las Casas, opposing the institution of slavery prior to this time. People considered it quite appropriate for one person to own another human being as a piece of property. Paul's comment in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." did not appear to have been followed, except perhaps spiritually. Neither were the statements by Jesus about treating one's fellow humans accepted and applied."

And so it isn't Jesus and Paul who are to blame, but those who failed to apply themselves to the faith. So blame historic Christendom all you like, but Christianity is a whole other story.


CR:

To ask the question again, how do you change the morality of a people? See those words....People considered it quite appropriate? Most humans for most of our history. So what does an outright prohibition accomplish? It's one small people in one small land. And even those people are described as a disobedient and rebellious people by the work in question, and at the very time in question. So how about making a haven for slaves instead of outright prohibition? And how about otherwise reporting that shortly after inception, before there's any word on just what any human has ever thought or done, And created God ha-adam in his image...male and female he created them? Recall what I said above about despising the image of God. So how do you change a peoples' morality? You not only have to change their mind, you also have to avoid a catastrophe. So you get the last, I doubt that Mao was bent on mass murder, but his forced collectivization effort resulted in the Great Chinese Famine that resulted in the deaths by starvation of more people than you and I can count in our two lifetimes. So given that we aren't starting on day one here, again, how do you change the morality of these people?

Latly, if you want the proverbial icing on the cake re the Torah's position on the purported "ownership" of one human by another human, well, simply get yourself a good Torah commentary and you'll likely find the explanation that God called to the light, day, to establish his ownership of the light. So with the principle in mind that naming implies ownership, now consider:

"Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them."

"And the side that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man."

See the bold? That is the Torah's statement of the reason why the Torah's God brought every beast and every bird to ha'adam. And note here also that this act of naming agrees rather nicely with the Torah's prior report of its God giving humans dominion over the animal creation. Now note that this statement of purpose is omitted in relation to the woman. Now note that the Torah does not report that its God ever informed ha'adam as concerns the purpose[s] of the event[s]. Now recall that ha'adam names the woman.

So whose is at fault for slavery? Quite simply, your statement re the Torah and Christianity and slavery is absurd and preposterous when the words you find objectionable are considered in context. I am otherwise wondering what purportedly more moral you is doing to end the slavery that still exists today? You telling people that the slave is in God's image and so slavery is an abomination? Didn't think so. But here is the face of modern slavery:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061202a.htm

You know what the Torah says regarding sex and the slave, yes? So much for the human sex slave trade.

Interesting thread. I've thought this a hundred times in the past year.

The thing is what exactly is Christian Morality? I suppose QH is gonna jump on this, so be easy on me. I'm changing my thought processes I suppose over time.

I think, to a certain degree, morality is dictated by society. Rich, poor, white, black, old, young, 1900's, and of course 1800's. The Bible and Christianity is a definite example of this, as you can see that over time, the necessary requirements for being "clean" or "worthy" change over time. For instance, pre-Christ (old Testament) requirements were drastically different than after Paul began to take the Church around the world.

Think about sex/violence and television in the past 2 decades. When we (or at least myself) were kids, the standards were drastically different. What was on billboards in 1985 and 2005 is even contrasting. Why? Morality has begun to shift.

Remember morning prayer? I do. No more. Get it? I'd have to say that even the kids of atheists at least bowed their heads in the early 80's for the prayer.

People want to lambast T Jefferson, but I'd have to state that he most likely was a part of a collective majority. Remember that slave labor was a large part of the economic wealth of early America. I believe, in my heart, that someone could own and/or keep slaves and treat them well. Maybe not even call them slaves, but rather indentured servants (*or something like that*).

There was a man in Minden, LA by the last name of Brown. He kept "slaves" before, during, and well after abolition, but they really weren't slaves. They earned better housing, clothing, and assignments by doing well. Eventually, they ended up share-cropping and earning land and money. There are even stories about some leaving and coming back because it was the nicest place to live and work. There still are his white and Black decendants in Minden now. His basic economic notion was that happy and well fed/clothed people worked harder and happier... producing a better yield. People didn't die from disease and thus didn't have to be replaced. His decendants are still a big part of the little town.

I think, during that time, it was how you treated the Black inhabitants of your land. It is and was necessary to have labor to work successful plantations. How they're compensated for their labor and how they're treated that set a man apart during that time in my mind. It was not necessary to have horrid and disgusting lives for the people that worked the fields.

Where did T Jefferson stand on this? I dunno. I suppose the answer to the "racist" and "moral" questions, in my mind, would rest on these notions.

What you are refering to here is doctrine, not morality. As Aevans rightly states above this post, morality is dictated by society. It does not matter what was written in the books most Europeans couldn't even read. What matters, and to which Turnea refered, is what was sanctioned.

Morality is the common perception of the society in question. In this case, the society in question is Christianity as a whole. The Catholic church is far and away the biggest, oldest and most responsible bastion of Christianity. Its influence has touched far more people than Jesus himself ever did, and regardless of individual examples, the majority of Christians through out history accepted and profited from slavery, colonisation and violence against innocent people.

Thus, Christianity, like all 'isms' is a proven flawed ideology that has no moral authority beyond the remits of its own internal logic and as such cannot be used as an unbiased metric by which to judge any one person, whether they be a Christian or not.

Inother words, when 'sin' was sanctioned by Gods direct representative on Earth, and God did nothing to contradict that sanction, then it was no longer a sin! Thomas Jefferson, as I wrote in my first post, lived in a time when slavery was open to debate. We live in a time when (no thanks to Christianity) slavery is illegal and imoral. The only way we can pass moral judgement on Thomas Jefferson is to pass moral judgement on the entire period in which he existed whilst ignoring the flaws which we have that might one day be considered immoral by people who do not share our concepts of morality.


Where did I mention Jesus and Paul?

It certainly should. The slavery era was a moral dark ages, and it tarnishes the "greatness" of all of our founding fathers who did not fight against it.


I never thought I would see so many conservative leaning folk arguing in favor of cultural relativism. It's absurd. If we follow the logical extension of this relative morality that many of you are espousing, then by what right can any of us criticize or judge genocide? Since so many Germans at the time didn't have a problem with Nazism, does that make it right? The janjaweed militia men and their families apparently don't have a problem with what they're doing; does that mean we can't challenge their morality? Does that mean you give up your right to challenge the morality of "hip hop culture" (yeah right)?

Thomas was a genius. Ok, I'll buy that. Then how could such a visionary with a such a timeless intellect, this bastion of human liberty and equality be so blind to the subjugation of the millions around him? Isn't he the guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence? It's pretty plain to see that the man was a hypocrite. You don't need 200 years of history to see that, it was as obvious back then as it is right now. I'm surprised that no one has brought up Benjamin Banneker and the letter he wrote to Jefferson in 1791, taking Jefferson to task over his absurd contradictions and hypocrisy (the letter was much more tactful and polite than I probably give the impression of it being).

Here's an excerpt:


here's an excerpt from Jefferson's short reply

here's the full text of Banneker's letter to Jefferson
and here's Jefferson's reply


Basically I'm hearing two defenses of Jefferson's apparent slavery hypocrisy.
1) everybody else was doing it
2) he didn't know any better (really an extension of one)

My contention is that (1) is flawed because there are examples throughout history of entire societies participating in/condoning acts that are known to be immoral no matter how much of the society agreed with it.

(2) is flawed because he clearly did know better. Banneker lays out Jefferson's hypocrisy pretty bare for him to see, and Jefferson admits that Africans lived in a degraded condition in America.

Is the greatness of Thomas Jefferson tarnished by his positions on race or is it unfair to critique Jefferson by today's evolved standard?

The greatness of Thomas Jefferson, as with any man is tarnished by his mixed record as a flawed human being. While perhaps today's standards are not entirely fair, (for what would we think of anyone who owned slaves today?) but he was part of the society that chose to eradicate slavery in parts around the world and he paid the notion lip service but was less generous than even George Washington on the issue.

He, a man prone to philosophizing, did not act in a way that befit his exalted status. Worse than that he exploited his master slave relationship for sexual gratification. I think it is fair to compare that relationship to statutory rape.

He is a great writer of American history and many of our writers have had checkered personal moral lives.
He is a great President of our history, and he is one of our presidents with a checkered moral past.

His public life is like that of the bible, you can find something to bolster almost any opinion from his writings. He held a variety of opinions in his lifetime and many of them contradicted each other.

His Continental Congress opinions on slavery did not match up with his actions.

It is not us, but rather history that shall judge Thomas Jefferson. Was he perfect? - No. (Indeed he failed he convince anyone to agree wtith him,) No. He was a man - flawed like all of us - but nevertherless willing to sacrifice everything he had (and he had a lot!) for one thing: independence.

You know...

...that's a really good point.

I'll admit I was focusing on viewpoints that could be backed textually rather than prevailing tradition, but how are we known except by our actions?

Add one for mitigating circumstances.

...but Jefferson was no illiterate, he could and did read for himself. As Eeyore pointed out he even expressed his knowledge that his behavior was immoral and continued to do so anyway.

That must count for something.

Turnea.

Yes. He had every right to judge himself and we have every right to take his word for it.

For my part however, I won't judge some one as ambiguous as Jefferson because he doesn't live up to my morality. The reason why I won't is because I like looking at pictures of naked women and one day in the future, that may be seen as horrendously immoral.

I don't see pornography as immoral, but I recognize that some people do and I do accept that there is a moral ambiguity involved since a lot of women are forced by direct or indirect means to take part in pornography. If I believed that pornography was immoral then I'd stop looking at it, but for long as there is only an ambiguity then I shall continue to be drawn towards pictures of naked women.

Moif:

I had said prior:

"And so it isn't Jesus and Paul who are to blame, but those who failed to apply themselves to the faith. So blame historic Christendom all you like, but Christianity is a whole other story."

You said in reply:

"Where did I mention Jesus and Paul?"

"Thus, Christianity, like all 'isms' is a proven flawed ideology that has no moral authority beyond the remits of its own internal logic and as such cannot be used as an unbiased metric by which to judge any one person, whether they be a Christian or not."

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "Christianity" as:

"1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.

2: Conformity to the Christian religion."

So if you didn't mention Jesus and didn't "indict" the NT, then a little hard for you to say that "Christianity" is a flawed ideology. And see my words above about some failing to apply themselves to the faith? See definition no. 2. And see the "professed" in definition 1? As I said, any and all can profess to be whatever they want, but let us check for the conformity. Just as you and the rest will now check your memory for that picture of the elephant to see whether I conform to the same when I now say that I am an elephant. That's the point.

Re morality being dictated by society, if we take your position to its logical conclusion, then we cannot ever condemn the Nazis, as they were acting according to their collective, hence societal morality. I don't otherwise know whether you meant to or not, but you've offered the most extreme statement of moral relativism that I have ever come across.

And lastly in Jefferson's regard, it might indeed be the "self-evident" that causes him some difficulty, I mean, as I've said here before, white slavemaster and black slave woman can engage in sexual relations and produce a "viable" child. What does that say about notions of superiority and inferiority? And it isn't the dogs who care that they aren't "pure bred", but some third party. I otherwise rather suspect that unlike the illiterate some who otherwise preceded the printing press, that Jefferson was aware of both relevant passages that I cited prior, and so should the Torah's God prove real he won't be able say that he didn't know.

And if your point was that Jefferson couldn't rise about the "majority morality" because the majority did indeed have their morality, well, then you and he need to explain:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_..._montesinos.cfm

Now might I ask the only question here that matter, why the disparity between Montesinos and Jefferson?

And what do we say about Jefferson with the Jesuits of South America in view:

http://academic.sun.ac.za/forlang/bergman/...sion/h_miss.htm
http://www.vqronline.org/articles/1999/spr...esuit-republic/

And, Moif, this statement is patently false:

"regardless of individual examples, the majority of Christians through out history accepted and profited from slavery, colonisation and violence against innocent people."

If that is true, then why did Thomas Aquinas need to pen an objection to serfdom in Europe? How much did the serfs, the other poor peasants, and the poor city dweller profit from slavery? And why would you think that the poor anywhere would be happy with a system that allowed the wealthy to maintain a bare subsistence slave workforce in their place?

And you also wrote:

"Thomas Jefferson, as I wrote in my first post, lived in a time when slavery was open to debate. We live in a time when (no thanks to Christianity) slavery is illegal and imoral."

The RCC ended slavery in Europe by "outlawing" the enslavement of Christians and since the RCC claimed the entire area as her own, every person therein was nominally Christian. And here in the US, the abolitionists got their start with the Quakers. And maybe you should speak with Paul Campos:

"...the campaign to end slavery in the United States was for many years largely the work of a small number of Christians who opposed slavery on explicitly religious grounds and who at the time were regularly condemned as fanatical zealots, bent (as indeed they were) on imposing their religiously based views regarding this particular issue on all those who disagreed."

I'll let you and the rest savor the irony of the statement of objection to their meddling, but while you're savoring that, have you heard of William Wilberforce? And Granville Sharp? John Wesley? Benjamin Rush? Thomas Clarkson? And what was the faith, if any, of those in the British Abolition Committee? And on what basis did they advocate abolition? As the one soul writes:

"Abolitionists believed passionately in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Indeed, the campaign's logo (devised by Josiah Wedgwood) was an image of a manacled slave on his knees beseeching his captor: ‘Am I not a man and a brother?' Antislavery activism relied on the conviction that all people were made in God's image (Genesis 1:26–27) and precious in his sight. God was the Father of all mankind, all nations were his ‘offspring', ‘of one blood' (Acts 17:26). Disturbed that blacks ‘stand convicted – of a darker skin!', the Anglican Evangelical Hannah More urged her readers to ‘Respect his image which they bear…They still are men, and men shou'd still be free'. ‘Africans and Europeans, Pagans and Christians, are all on a level', wrote the Calvinist Baptist Abraham Booth. Oppressed Africans ‘are brethren of the human kind'. ‘We are the common offspring of one universal Parent', wrote the Anglican Thomas Bradshaw, ‘with whom there is no respect of persons'.
***
The Christian belief in the fundamental unity of the human race clashed with fashionable theories of polygenesis and African inferiority, promoted by infidel philosophers. As Davis explains, ‘early antislavery writers like James Ramsay and Granville Sharp repeatedly identified the theory of racial inferiority with Hume, Voltaire, and materialistic philosophy in general; they explicitly presented their attacks on slavery as a vindication of Christianity, moral accountability, and the unity of mankind.
***
The most eloquent testimony against ideas of racial inferiority came from black converts to Christianity. Abolitionists pointed to the writings of accomplished Africans: the letters of Ignatius Sancho , the poems of Phillis Wheatley, and the autobiography of Olaudah Equiano. Equiano himself pointed to Scripture. Commenting on a book arguing ‘that the Negro race is an inferior species of mankind', he wrote indignantly: ‘Oh fool! See the 17th chapter of the Acts, verse 26: “God hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earthâ€�'. Working out the logical implications of the text, Equiano argued in favour of racial intermarriage, and went on to marry Susannah Cullen of Soham in Cambridgeshire."

And now what about the slaves themselves? Ever read the lyrics to any "Negro spiritual" from the days of slavery? Here's a few lines and some commentary, and maybe after you read the commentary you'll realize just how wrong you are [ http://postmodernegro.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_archive.html ]:

"In this post I want to talk about another similarity between these family members that deeply resonates with me: subversive narration. I don't know if someone has used this word before me. It kind of popped up in my head as I was reflecting on an old Negro Spiritual, Go Down Moses. Here are a few stanzas from the old spiritual:

When Israel was in Egypt's Land, Let my people go,
Opressed so hard they could not stand, Let my people go.
Chorus: Go down, Moses, Way down in Egypt's Land. Tell ol' Pharoah, Let my people go.
Thus saith the Lord, bold Moses said, Let my people go, If not, I'll smite your first-born dead, Let my people go.
Chorus: Go down, Moses, Way down in Egypt's Land. Tell ol' Pharoah, Let my people go.
No more shall they in bondage toil, Let my people go, Let them come out with Egypt's spoil, Let my people go.
Chorus: Go down, Moses, Way down in Egypt's Land. Tell ol' Pharoah, Let my people go.

This particular spiritual is a popular hymn in black churches going back several generations in black Christianity. What it highlights is how black churches grabbed hold of the powerful narrative of Scripture that talked of a God that comes down to the nitty gritty of life. In the midst of social and economic oppression and delivers God's people from the Pharoah.
This particular narrative still exercises a big influence in black church experience. Naturally, it makes sense. Black folks were introduced to American Christianity during slavery. It makes sense that the Exodus narrative would seize their souls. The Exodus narrative gave black Christians critical tools to 'deconstruct' the peculiar institution in the South. The appropriation of the Exodus narrative in black Christianity was a subversive appropriation whereby black folks could possess hope that God would redeem them in their slavery. The Exodus narrative was embodied by black Churches creating social space where they could be human beings...the imago dei. Not only did the Exodus narrative provide this kind of reality for black folks so did the cross and resurrection of Christ. Seen as the climax and lense through which all of history and existence is to be interpreted the Gospel's Jesus deeply resonated with black Christians. If anybody understood suffering black Christians did. That's why the stories in the gospels were appropriated in profound and subversive ways by black Christians. This is mostly seen through the negro spirituals and slave narratives."

One, me, would tend to think that you've no argument left, since the victims of slavery have themselves grabbed hold of the faith.

And, Moif, if it wasn't faith-based, in my nation at least, then perhaps you might explain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hymn_of_the_Republic



Lastly, you also wrote, and I don't want to start a theological debate, but this cannot pass without challenge:

"Inother words, when 'sin' was sanctioned by Gods direct representative on Earth, and God did nothing to contradict that sanction, then it was no longer a sin!"

Pity that in all instances the Christian God had already contradicted the Christian God's purported direct representative [or more correctly, the Christian God's purported direct rep contradicted prior revelation]. The notion of papal infallibility was otherwise formally adopted with Vatican I around 1870 or so.

And there is Pope Adrian VI [1523]: "It is beyond question that he [the Pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics." And while I won't call Peter a heretic, we do have, as an example of what Pope Adrian was talking about, error, Paul's words in Galatians: But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he was to be blamed. I will take it as a given that the subject matter of Galatians goes to the matter of the faith and morals of Christians [why else would the work be in the NT?]. And so Paul opposed Peter. So let the Pope explain this notion of infallibility as the doctrine is his and not the NT's, and he might start with Paul opposing Peter to his face, and there is no report, reliable or otherwise, that Peter pulled rank and said that he, and not Paul, was God's direct rep on earth. If you've heard and/or read that story, it might be kinda hard for you to then justify the sin on the claim that you were only following the new Peter's instruction[s], and never mind for now the fact that papal infallibility was not declared "official policy" until around 1870 or so.

And do you otherwise see the self-evident problem with the notion of papal infallibility [should be self-evident to anyone who believes in this thing called "free will]? The notion of papal infallibility denies the pope the free choice to decide to become a heretic [presumably, now, by ex cathedra pronouncement]. Not that he was a worthy a pope, as he wasn't, but I believe that Pope John XXII rejected the notion of papal infallibility on precisely this ground [some Franciscans were arguing for infallibility, so that way, Pope John XXII would be bound by the dogmatic doctrine of a prior pope in their favor, and so Pope John XXII wrote in reply that as a free moral actor he retained on principle the right to become a heretic though he would not then exercise that right by claiming the infallibility urged by the Franciscans].

Truly lastly, sorry to the rest if all this talk of Christianity and/or God grates, but I'm tired of the "drive bys". I merely offered the one quote because it was written roughly 1,700 years prior to Jefferson and the person who the wrote the same otherwise lived in a world of slavery, as 1 in 3 in Rome were slaves. So if that soul could deny that there was slave and free, then why not Jefferson?

Actually, I did read your link, quick. I just wasn't terribly impressed by it since it VDARE.com is a loony tune far-right website that features race-baiting and Jew bashing invective on the homepage. For example, in reference to a crime in Knoxville, TN, where Black suspects assaulted and killed White victims, the VDARE writer interviews Alex Linder, editor of The Vanguard News Network, an online publication founded by White supremacist and Neo-Nazi William Pierce of the National Alliance, and author of The Turner Diaries, one of the books that "inspired" Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh.

Stix says Linder, "maintains he is a "Burkean conservative". But it seems to me that whites who advocate the annihilation of Jews, and who call the Holocaust a "hoax," can reasonably be referred to as "neo-Nazis." Neo-Nazis typically promote a theory whereby the Jews, who constitute a mere 1/500th of the world's population, comprise an international conspiracy ruling the world. Jews supposedly rule America through "ZOG"--�the "Zionist Occupation Government." This theory is meant to present Nazis and neo-Nazis as heroic Davids to the Jewish Goliath."

"But, laugh or weep as you will, these are the folks who defend whites--or at least, some whites--�in America, 2007"

Nicholas Stix [NS]: Now, I don't have to tell you that this, these crimes have undergone a media blackout, in terms of the national media.

Alex Linder [AL]: That's correct.

NS: How do you explain that?

AL: Well, it's the Jewish media control. And the fact that any kind of non-white crime doesn't fit their agenda, so they suppress it... right-wing nut site

Stik concludes, "In spite of his plan to kill all the world's Jews, Linder was a most gracious interview subject..."

So, yes I DID read your link and I went further and read more of what was on the web site. Here's my conclusion: If you want your "evidence" of Jefferson's innocence in being the baby daddy of Sally Hemings children to be taken seriously GET YOUR "PROOF" SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN A RACIST WEB SITE!



...and you can also reflect upon how much of that genius and stature was built on the bent and broken backs of Black men, women and children that Jefferson held in bondage and treated like subhumans. Reflect on THAT, while you're strolling the grounds and soak in the hypocrisy.




What a pretty little fairy tale, Aevans176. Too bad it wasn't the rule, not the exception.

Slavery wasn't full employment, good housing, nice clothes and a grand time for one and all. It was brutal beatings with the whip. It was crippling and hobbling slaves so they could not run away. It was branding men, women and children like cattle. It was rape. It was murder.

IT WAS NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM remotely humane or kind:

Advertisement in the North Carolina Standard (28th July, 1838)

Twenty dollars reward. Runaway from the subscriber, a negro woman and two children; the woman is tall and black, and a few days before she went off burnt her on the left side of her face with the letter M. Her children are both boys, the oldest is in his seventh year; he is a mulatto and has blue eyes; the youngest is a black, and is in his fifth year

St. Louis Gazette (6th November, 1845)

A wealthy man here had a boy named Reuben, almost white, whom he caused to be branded in the face with the words; 'A slave for life.'

W. L. Bost, aged 88 from Asheville, North Carolina, interviewed as part of the Federal Writers Project in 1937.

I remember how they kill one nigger whipping him with the bullwhip. Many the poor nigger nearly killed with the bullwhip. But this one die. He was a stubborn Negro and didn't do as much work as his massa thought he ought to. He been lashed lot before. So they take him to the whipping post, and then they strip his clothes off and then the man stand off and cut him with the whip. His back was cut all to pieces. The cuts about half inch apart. Then after they whip him they tie him down and put salt on him. Then after he lie in the sun awhile they whip him again. But when they finish with he, he was dead.

Plenty of the colored women have children by the white men. She know better than to not do what he say. Didn't have much of that until the men from South Carolina come up here and settle and bring slaves. Then they take them very same children what have they own blood and make slaves out of them. If the missus find out she raise revolution. But she hardly find out. The white men not going to tell and the nigger women were always afraid to. So they just go on hoping that things won't be that way always. link

And Thomas Jefferson was part of that evil system. Despite all his fine words about liberty and justice and equality, he left Negroes OUT of the equation. Can't let a little thing like freedom stand in the way of getting the cotton picked.

Not at all. I believe logic dictates that any ideology that can be used to permit slavery or any other form of violence against innocent people, is flawed. I do not care that individuals, like Thomas Aquinas, who follow an ideology might have commendable opinions based on their own perception of that ideology. For as long as an ideology can be used against innocent people, then it is flawed.


Unfortunately for your point KT, you don't get to decide what other people believe. Not even hindsight grants you the clarity of wisdom needed to pass judgement on the basis of what long dead Popes sanctioned in the name of God. Not unless your a clairvoyant...

With regards to the rest of your post. I am not going to get drawn into a pointless, and verboten debate regarding Christinity. I am talking about social morality, as in what Christian people actually believed to be their morality and why. I have not made any claims as to why Thomas Jefferson did what he did, or what he might have believed. I have no idea, nor can I have any idea as to how his mind worked. Only that as a human being he was prone to the same internal contradictions that all human beings are.


Wrong. I have already said in my initial post: One can certainly examine, or even judge, a man like Thomas Jefferson by todays standards. Morality is not beholden to any time frame. If you believe slavery is wrong then it is wrong, regardless of its legal status in seveteen twenty when ever.


Much of what your raising has already been dealt with in my previous posts. I have already mentioned that the Catholic church outlawed slavery in Christian Europe:

NT--because SOME slaveowners beat their slaves, or raped slave women, is NOT evidence that Jefferson did so, or sanctioned it.

Indeed, in the late 1840s, a male field hand cost around a $1,000.00. Since the average annual family income at that time was only about $1,500.00, buying one male field hand cost 2/3 of a years' income. How many people would pay that much for a slave and then beat or cripple him so his work output is reduced? I am sure SOME folks did this--but I am sure many did not (as most slaves were not on big plantations but owned by small farmers who onwed one or two hands, and the majority of Southerners owned no slaves at all because they were too costly or they did not believe in slavery).

But, at any rate, you have no evidence that Jefferson did anything awful to his slaves, or sanctioned such, and as to Hemings, as I noted, she was a 3/4 white mulatto and not your typical field hand or maid. There is no evidence he raped her.

Stick to the FACTS.

Look, no one here is trying to say slavery in the US was a good thing; what some of us are saying is that it is not fair to look back in the same way one looks laterally. And, as many have tried to say, blacks were not viewed as fully human in this era (and this was not a moral judgment but a scientific one, at least in the primitive science of the day), so much of what Jefferson's contemporaries may have thought about liberty did not apply to blacks, at least in their minds. Indeed, when Jefferson wrote "All MEN are created equal...", he meant white, male landowners. Not blacks; not women; not the unhorsed. We have changed our views, but that is what HE thought....and Athenian democracy only applied to the relative handful of Athenian citizens, not their slaves, not foreigners, etc.

Of course, since blacks have enslaved each other for millenia, captured and sold each other to the Europeans, and still practice slavery in several parts of Africa TODAY, well....I'll let you deal with that one, even if your real talent is tarring and feathering those of us whose forbears actually outlawed the practice--and paid for the change in the blood of about 600,000 (mostly white) soldiers.