Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

goteamnick t1_jabjjk3 wrote

He also kept hundreds of people enslaved, including his own children from his rape victim, so he could live in obscene luxury.

2

semiomni t1_jaby78m wrote

Well nothing in the bible forbidding slavery.

Which is odd really, don't steal made the cut, no worshipping false idols made the cut, not owning other people though, no rules against that.

13

spiked_macaroon t1_jac9lgn wrote

Quite the contrary, there are guidelines for slavery in the Bible.

12

Whargod t1_jacucgu wrote

Guidelines doesn't mean a ban, it means it's ok as long as you follow a particular magic sky elf or whatever they believe.

0

MattyKatty t1_jaby5bk wrote

> including his own children from his rape victim

Not only is there no actual proof that he had children with Sally Hemings, but also there’s no proof that he had a sexual relationship with her at all.

8

Nivekian13 t1_jabymd5 wrote

DNA tests say otherwise, contrarian goof…

−5

XIphos12 t1_jabn4qj wrote

Hey. Don't bother people with the truth , they hate it

−3

zebrastarz t1_jacyaf2 wrote

Hey, Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician whose work is still cited to this day, but obviously shouldn't be revered for other reasons. People are complex and lived in different times and circumstances than you and I. Knowing the truth is powerful and useful, but it is all about context. Facts about Jefferson's slave-owning have practically zero to do with his contributions to law and philosophy. Many great thinkers were not necessarily great people.

9

GenXer3383 t1_jad0i77 wrote

The same people who want Jefferson struck from memory revere French gender theorists who signed a letter in support of men (ages 39-45) who were awaiting trial for statutory rape of 12 and 13 year old kids when the age of consent was 15 in France.

6

XIphos12 t1_jad4i68 wrote

What is all this nonsense about striking Jefferson from history and revering French gender theorists?

0

GenXer3383 t1_jad5a44 wrote

The woke left who have vandalized statues of Jefferson revere the gender theory laid down by the likes of Simone de Beauvoir.

Also, I said memory, not history. To clarify, they want any positive memory of Jefferson to be drowned out with "he owned and raped slaves" while they are blissfully ignorant that Jefferson tried to pass laws to reduce and eliminate slavery. The man wasn't perfect, but was a much better man than they want to believe.

3

Lalakea t1_jadiw4i wrote

Washington owned slaves. Madison owned slaves. Monroe owned slaves. Were there any founding fathers from the south that weren't slaveowners? I mean, you probably weren't getting elected to anything unless you owned a plantation. If you tried to farm without using slaves you'd probably go broke, because your competition is able to sell at a cheaper price.

2

GenXer3383 t1_jadk0jj wrote

Also, if you married a daughter of a plantation owner, even if you don't want more slaves, you or she may inherit slaves from her parents when they die, and you don't have an option in the matter. Messed up situation all around.

3

Lalakea t1_jadovri wrote

Yep. I suppose you could free all your slaves and sell your land (most of these guys were up to their asses in debt, so maybe not), and wash your hands of the whole nasty business, but now...

  1. You have to move. Your neighbors will hate you. Intensely. Go north, old man. Run.
  2. Your former slaves have no clear path forward. No money, no land. Do you think the locals will welcome them warmly as new equal citizens and offer employment at fair wages? Not likely. No, they will (best case) drive them away as living embodiments of the immorality of their way of life. Or (more likely), lynchings will ensue.
  3. That guy you sold your farm to. What do you think he is going to do? That's right: buy some more slaves and get back to business as usual. Congratulations, you have financially ruined your family and have accomplished... nothing. Changing the world ain't easy.
2

XIphos12 t1_jad6cst wrote

I have no idea who this de Beauvoir guy was, and to be honest I don't give a shit. Jefferson was what he was. Pointing out that he owned slaves isn't somehow wrong, no matter what effect that information has on the public. Those facts should be just as front-and-center as any of his redeeming qualities or achievements.

0

GenXer3383 t1_jad7igv wrote

Simone de Beauvoir was a woman.

The point is, it is a problem when ignorant people only bleat out "Jefferson had slaves" anytime they see something remotely positive about him, when they have no clue he was on the forefront of trying to end slavery in the US in his day.

1

XIphos12 t1_jadct81 wrote

So level with me then: these people are ignorant by stating a simple fact about him. This frustrates you because it doesn't complete the picture. Yet I have to ask, if Jefferson "was at the forefront" as you say, why did he not start with his own slaves? If you're going to expect something from others, you should probably make it your own practice. In my mind, that makes him one of two things in regards to the abolition of slavery: foolish or insincere. We can't pretend he had no influence in Revolutionary America, and we can't we pretend he practiced what he preached. Honestly if he had started with his own (more than just 2 of his 600), it may have gone a long way. Yet speculation is just speculation and the facts remain: Jefferson owned slaves and used them. He freed a handful (including those freed before and after he died), and the rest were sold after his death to pay off his substantial debt.

2

GenXer3383 t1_jaderb7 wrote

Laws were restrictive in freeing slaves at the time. Jefferson also believed in educating and training slaves so they were no illiterate and unskilled citizens destined to be desititue for life with little or no resources to build a life for themselves. Presumably, he lacked the resources to pursue his political career (including trying to end slavery), maintain his family and estate, and properly prepare more slaves to be freemen.

In the end, his efforts to curb slavery socially and politically didn't bear great fruit, though slavery was shrinking until the industrial revolution made slave labor more economically viable. Perhaps Jefferson would be looked upon more kindly if he had a time machine, knew his policies wouldn't end slavery, and had the foresight to free a greater amount of his own slaves. (Though again, pro-slavery politicians and landholders made freeing large numbers of slaves very difficult with laws and policies they successfully put in place.)

For people to just spew "hur dur, Jefferson had slaves" when he couldn't just wave his had and free all his slaves to live happy and productive lives is lazy and smears the legacy of a great leader in our history.

1

XIphos12 t1_jadl5ea wrote

Oh, for heaven's sake, he wasn't restricted from freeing his own slaves. Robert Carter did it! George Washington did it! Nobody said anything about a magic hand wave. He could have just made the decision to let his own captives go. He seemed to have thought the event of complete emancipation would trigger great civil unrest at the time. His refusal to create an amendment for the gradual emancipation of slavery combined with his condemning/outlawing the international slave trade leads me to believe he was wishy-washy and selfish in his anti-slavery efforts, at best.

1

GenXer3383 t1_jado8l6 wrote

You want to believe the worst of the man while refusing to acknowledge the conflicts he had to contend with to do so.

1

XIphos12 t1_jadq5d4 wrote

Nope. He had many redeeming qualities and he did indeed make some legislative effort to remove the institution. I just think his own internal biases and uncertainties were his undoing in regards to slavery. He believed blacks were inferior to whites, and he thought they should be emancipated in Africa and that freedmen should colonize there, because doing it on American soil would lead to great social turmoil and violence. From an observational standpoint, he was correct in the latter thought, to his credit. Civil unrest and war broke out after the abolition of slavery.

1

XIphos12 t1_jad3wb9 wrote

You're exactly right, there is more to Jefferson than slavery. Yet, you could measure historical figures in their entirety and not see them as people to hold in reverence at all. I'd be more impressed that Jefferson was the primary penman behind the Declaration of Independence if he wholly subscribed to the ideals therein, for instance. You know, contrary to the whole "don't measure by today's standards, such and such person was just a product of their time", it's perfectly acceptable to judge the actions of a historical figure by our own standards. It reasserts our own moral progress. People in the future are going to do it to us, too

3

zebrastarz t1_jad6zad wrote

I'm not saying don't judge; Teddy K and I aren't buds or nothin. All I'm saying is that this line of discussion is irrelevant to the topic, just like discussing the legacy of the Unabomber is useless when the topic is math.

3

XIphos12 t1_jad9ai1 wrote

That's true too. Remember discussions don't have to stay in one place though. The post was about Thomas Jefferson's variety with churches he attended, and the comments drifted toward a discussion about Thomas Jefferson in general, which seems normal honestly. It's natural for people who aren't fans of Jefferson to point out his flaws and for people who think positively about him to defend all his merits

0

RabbaJabba t1_jad278i wrote

> Hey, Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician whose work is still cited to this day

Is it? Google scholar seems to only show a handful of citations of his papers, mostly from when he was active.

2

zebrastarz t1_jad445c wrote

The small sample is easily explained by it being an obscure area of math and the most recent citation to his most prolific work was in 2021 from a quick search...

ETA: some support about the obscurity: "Maxwell Reade, a member of his dissertation committee, said, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it"

3

RabbaJabba t1_jaein35 wrote

>his most prolific work

I hope you mean his second-most-cited work, number one is the manifesto

1