Can our Third President Thomas Jefferson be credited with ending Slavery in the U.S.?

[Starguard]

This is an issue that was mistakenly started in an unintended hi-jack of another thread in General Discussions asking Who can be credited with actually ending
slavery.


I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the USA I don't personally think that it can be credited to just one person. I believe that slaverys end can be credited to the long term efforts of several people (both whites and slaves) that eventually bought it to an end. Many people have been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the sole person who single handedly stopped the slave movement in the U.S. by signing the Emancipation Proclamation officially making slavery Illegal in the USA. Even though this was a great boost in bringing the savage horrors of slavery to an end, there were many others before Abraham Lincolns time that were just as effective (some even more than he was) at putting it to an end. One of these men was indeed Thomas Jefferson. For whatever reason you may either agree or disagree with me on this, please feel free to post any information you have here for all of us to benefit from. Meanwhile I will look up a speech that Thomas Jefferson made reflecting his views on Slavery during his time and will add it to my next posting. :)

[Starguard]

Here, for those that need help, look through all the postings on this webpage (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=thomas+jefferson%27s+views+on+slavery&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=) and tell us what conclusions you draw from it

[Starguard]

Heres a speech (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/slavery.htm) that Thomas Jefferson gave reflecting his view on slavery . Please comment on what you draw from his views

[Captain Amazing]

Heres a speech (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/slavery.htm) that Thomas Jefferson gave reflecting his view on slavery .

That's not a speech. That's from his "Notes on Virginia". And what he's saying there is, "Slavery is bad because it makes us lazy, but we can't just set the slaves free, because blacks are mostly too stupid to take care of themselves...stupider even than Indians, although they are musical."

And even though Jefferson did work to pass some anti-slavery legislation in the House of Burgesses (a failed bill to allow Virginians to free their slaves, as well as a bill barring free blacks from living in Virginia), that's pretty much all he did against slavery, with the exception of a clause cut out of the Declaration of Independence, and the comment in his Notes. Even on a personal level, he didn't even set his slaves free in his will, as Washington did. Jefferson talked a good game, but that's all he did.

[Blalron]

I'd give credit to the Radical Republican Congress who introduced the Thirteenth amendment to the Constitution.

[John Mace]

Considering that he didn't even end slavery on his own plantation, I don't see how he can be credited with ending slavery in the US. He was too stuck in his time to understand the contradictions he held-- that slavery was somehow bad, but that the economy couldn't live without it.

[2sense]

Notes on Virginia was an influential work. In The American Counter Revolution: A Retreat From Liberty, 1783-1800 Professor Larry Tise introduces the topic in this way:
"But as Jefferson introduced new and more powerful declarations of the rights of man, he began in 1785 to publish a different set of declarations that had an equally decisive effect on modifying who in America could enjoy those inalienable rights."

And later:
"Thus when Jefferson arrived in New York in March 1790 to take up his post as the first secretary of state of the United States, his views on slavery and race as articulated in Notes on Virginia were being hailed from every corner. As he walked into the halls of Congress, James Jackson of Georgia and William Loughton Smith from South Carolina were holding forth, citing letter and verse from the Notes on Virginia to uphold slavery."

Jefferson wasn't an emancipator. He was an apologist for slavery. If you are interested another good book covering race relations during the revolutionary period is Jefferson's Pillow: The Founding Fathers and the Dilemma of Black Patriotism by Roger Wilkins.
-

[Northern Piper]

Many people have been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the sole person who single handedly stopped the slave movement in the U.S. by signing the Emancipation Proclamation officially making slavery Illegal in the USA.
Well, except he wasn't and didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure that only applied to the states in rebellion. It didn't have any effect elsewhere in the U.S.

There's no doubt that Mr. Lincoln's decision to issue the Proclamation lead the way towards total abolition, but he did not have the power to do that. As Blaron notes, abolition only occurred once the U.S. Congress proposed the Thirteenth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment13/), and a sufficient number of states ratified it. That's what's ended slavery in the U.S.

So, to respond to the OP:

Jefferson: wrote various bits and pieces lamenting the practice of keeping slaves; trembled for his country if God is just; kept slaves; may have had sexual relations with one of them; did not follow the lead of President Washington and liberate his slaves in his will.

Lincoln: fought a Civil War in which the slavery issue was front and centre; issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in the states in rebellion; threw his political support behind the Thirteenth Amendment.

Various U.S. Congressmen, Senators: proposed the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery throught the U.S.

Numerous state representatives & senators: voted to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment, upon which event slavery was abolished.

Yeah, old Thomas' track record on this point is sure impressive.

[David Simmons]

I doubt that Jefferson was a big factor in the elimination of slavery. The book Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History by UCLA professor Fawn Brodie makes it pretty clear that Jefferson was all over the map on the subject. He knew that slavery was an abomination but couldn't get past the history of his surroundings.

You can probably dig up a Jefferson quote on both sides of any facet of the subject you care to explore.

[Starguard]

I doubt that Jefferson was a big factor in the elimination of slavery. The book Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History by UCLA professor Fawn Brodie makes it pretty clear that Jefferson was all over the map on the subject. He knew that slavery was an abomination but couldn't get past the history of his surroundings.

You can probably dig up a Jefferson quote on both sides of any facet of the subject you care to explore.
I agree with this statement totally

[2sense]

You can probably dig up a Jefferson quote on both sides of any facet of the subject you care to explore.

The same could be said for a lot of subjects.

Jefferson's voluminous writings are more creative than consistant.
-

[David Simmons]

The same could be said for a lot of subjects.

Jefferson's voluminous writings are more creative than consistant.
-

Yes, and changing your mind back and forth about difficult matters ain't all bad.

To paraphrase the adage about spelling (It's a mighty pore mind that cain't think of mor'n one way to spell a word.) "It's a mighty poor mind that can only see one side of a complex subject."

[Little Nemo]

Well, except he wasn't and didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure that only applied to the states in rebellion. It didn't have any effect elsewhere in the U.S.
Which is kind of like saying that a law making murder illegal doesn't actually stop people from being killed. True in a narrow sense, but it ignores the big picture.

Lincoln declared he was going to emancipate all the slaves in territory that was currently in rebellion. He had already declared that he was going to restore all rebellious territory to American control. Put the two together and the result is a lot of slaves getting freed. Maybe not that day, but the results were inevitable from the moment the proclamation was made.

[UDS]

Not quite, because there were slaveholding states which were not in rebellion and which were never going to be affected by the Emancipation Proclamation. It was always going to take a constititutional amendment (or separate action by every slaveholding states) to eliminate slavery.

[David Simmons]

Not quite, because there were slaveholding states which were not in rebellion and which were never going to be affected by the Emancipation Proclamation. It was always going to take a constititutional amendment (or separate action by every slaveholding states) to eliminate slavery.

Well, Lincoln either actutally didn't have or thought that he didn't have the power to affect slavery except in those areas of the country in rebellion. And based upon the law at the time he was probably right.

[Little Nemo]

I agree that the 13th Amendment was necessary to finally end all slavery. But the fact is that by the time the amendment was passed, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had already freed probably 95% of the slaves in the country. In my opinion someone who accomplishes 95% of a job deserves at least as much credit as the people who finish the last part.

In the OP, Starguard wrote that other people were more effective than Lincoln in ending slavery. Discounting his personal opinion that Jefferson had anything to do with it, can anyone plausibly name a single individual who had more to do with ending slavery in this country than Lincoln?

[Starguard]

I agree that the 13th Amendment was necessary to finally end all slavery. But the fact is that by the time the amendment was passed, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had already freed probably 95% of the slaves in the country. In my opinion someone who accomplishes 95% of a job deserves at least as much credit as the people who finish the last part.

In the OP, Starguard wrote that other people were more effective than Lincoln in ending slavery. Discounting his personal opinion that Jefferson had anything to do with it, can anyone plausibly name a single individual who had more to do with ending slavery in this country than Lincoln?

Here's an entire list of them

Benjamin Lindy
Lyman Beecher
Nathaniel Taylor
Charles G. Finney
Theodore D. Weld
Author and Lewis Tappan
William Lloyd Garrisonhttp

and there are Many more..They were called Abolitionalist (http://www.us-civilwar.com/abolitionist.htm)

Many of these people (and others that are not listed) risked their lives and sometimes lost them, to put an end to slavery at its bare roots. If it were not for people like these, there most likely would not have even been an emancipation proclamation for Lincoln to sign in the first place.

[Starguard]

Here is another reference about many unsung heroes that risked being imprisoned or even killed for acting out against slavery by supporting something known as the underground railroad (http://afgen.com/underground_railroad.html). Check it out!

[Little Nemo]

They were called Abolitionalist
Actually they were called abolitionists, but let's not quibble.

Your list was hardly an entire one: you left out Wendell Phillips, James Birney, Edmund Quincy, Elizur Wright, Lucy Stone, Gerrit Smith, Thaddeus Stevens, Thomas Garret, the Grimkes, the Lowells, the Howes. And of course John Brown and Harriet Beecher Stowe. And Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Solomon Northrup, Bet Freeman, and William Still. I suppose you could add Wilberforce and Clarkson. And Saint Patrick.

But all of these people combined freed fewer slaves than Lincoln did. They created the support which allowed him to take the action and they deserve full credit for that. But Lincoln deserves full credit for taking the action.

[Captain Amazing]

But all of these people combined freed fewer slaves than Lincoln did. They created the support which allowed him to take the action and they deserve full credit for that. But Lincoln deserves full credit for taking the action.

Except arguably for Thaddeus Stevens, who was the major sponsor of the 13th Amendment, but that's being excessively nitpicky, maybe. :)

[APB]

Here's an entire list of them

Benjamin Lindy
Lyman Beecher
Nathaniel Taylor
Charles G. Finney
Theodore D. Weld
Author and Lewis Tappan
William Lloyd Garrisonhttp

and there are Many more...

Never mind Lincoln, did they do more than Jefferson?

Of course they did (along with thousands of others), which is why it is so absurd to single Jefferson out for credit. Starguard, you really do need to get your head round the concept of relative importance.

[Starguard]

Never mind Lincoln, did they do more than Jefferson?

Of course they did (along with thousands of others), which is why it is so absurd to single Jefferson out for credit. Starguard, you really do need to get your head round the concept of relative importance.

The only conclusive point I was attempting to make was that Thomas Jefferson was amonst the first Political figures to both recognise and bring to the attention of others that Slavery was wrong. Even thought he never actualy made himself clear on where he stood, He was one of the very first people to make it known to others that one day slavery must come to an end..

Before one can make even the strongest chain, one has to first start with the first link...Thomas Jefferson was amonst those first links.

[Captain Amazing]

The only conclusive point I was attempting to make was that Thomas Jefferson was amonst the first Political figures to both recognise and bring to the attention of others that Slavery was wrong. Even thought he never actualy made himself clear on where he stood, He was one of the very first people to make it known to others that one day slavery must come to an end.

No he wasn't. He wasn't even one of the first political figures to condemn slavery in America. The Quakers in Pennsylvania voted to expel any slaveholding members in 1776. Slavery was abolished in Vermont in 1777, in Penn. in 1780, Mass. in 1783, RI and CT in 1784, in New York in 1799, in New Jersey in 1804. It's not like Jefferson was some sort of lone voice. In fact, there was even substantial anti-slavery sentiment in Virginia. In 1785, the Baptist General Committee of Virginia called slavery "contrary to the Word of God", and in 1790, speaking of slavery. recommended " to our brethren to make use of every legal measure to extirpate the horrid evil from our land".

[2sense]

And lets not forget that the belief that slavery would end somehow and somewhen ( but not now and not MY slaves ) wasn't an abolitionist sentiment. It was a cop out. As opposition grew the question of when slavery would end became more imperitive and in the bloody summer of 1835 as other factors converged the answer went from "Someday..." to "NEVER!" and the United States experienced a wave of mob violence such as it has never seen before or since as proslavery partisans attempted to silence the abolitionists.
-

[Little Nemo]

Except arguably for Thaddeus Stevens, who was the major sponsor of the 13th Amendment, but that's being excessively nitpicky, maybe.
Actually after my last post, I realized the Wilberforce and Clarkson probably freed more slaves than Lincoln. But this thread is supposedly about American slaves, so I'm going to give myself a pass.

[Wendell Wagner]

No one has yet made the following point: The fact that some white man has had sex with a black woman (even assuming that Hemmings willingly had sex with Jefferson, which isn't completely clear), or even that they had a child together, doesn't prove that they aren't racist. Lots of white men who were racist had secret black lovers. To give the most obvious case, the fact that Strom Thurmond had an illegitimate daughter with a black woman doesn't make him any less racist.

[Starguard]

I agree that the 13th Amendment was necessary to finally end all slavery. But the fact is that by the time the amendment was passed, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had already freed probably 95% of the slaves in the country. In my opinion someone who accomplishes 95% of a job deserves at least as much credit as the people who finish the last part.

In the OP, Starguard wrote that other people were more effective than Lincoln in ending slavery. Discounting his personal opinion that Jefferson had anything to do with it, can anyone plausibly name a single individual who had more to do with ending slavery in this country than Lincoln?

For those that believe that Loncoln was the great emancipator of slaves Please
Read this very carefully (http://partners.nytimes.com/books/first/b/bennett-glory.html) I think that this will sum up everything once and for all

[Starguard]

For those that believe that Loncoln was the great emancipator of slaves Please
Read this very carefully (http://partners.nytimes.com/books/first/b/bennett-glory.html) I think that this will sum up everything once and for all


Typo: "Loncoln" should read "Lincoln" :smack:

[Captain Amazing]

For those that believe that Loncoln was the great emancipator of slaves Please
Read this very carefully (http://partners.nytimes.com/books/first/b/bennett-glory.html) I think that this will sum up everything once and for all

I've read the Bennett book. Bennett gets facts wrong, he always interprets events in ways that portrays Lincoln in the worst light, and he ignores context. Even McPherson's review associated with the book that you linked to says that Bennett's book is hopelessly flawed. Did you not read the review? Do you disagree with it? If so, why? Did you read the book? What about it did you find convincing?

[Wendell Wagner]

Starguard,

Perhaps you should not just read webpages and post to the SDMB. Perhaps you should also spend some significant amount of time reading books. You'll find that it greatly repays the amount of time spent doing so.

[deadeyesdad]

Let's first of all remember that Lincoln believed(as I do) that the south never had actually left the union. Therefore, in his thinking he freed all slaves in the United States in the areas where there were persons who were rebelling against the authority of the United States. Everything Licoln ever said or did refered to the rebels as combinations of people resisting the lawful authority of the United States. He freed the slaves in those areas where the people were still in rebellion. He had authority over those areas as he was the President of the United States. It really doesn't matter whether or not those persons proclaimed their allegiance to the Confederate gov't, that gov't was not the legal power. So the Emancipation Proclaimation did legally free the affected slaves.

"And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."

Unless Congress acted differently and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Congress, the Executive branch of the gov't had to obey the President's orders.

Emancipation Proclaimation (http://www.7cs.com/Emanc.htm)

[Starguard]

I've read the Bennett book. Bennett gets facts wrong, he always interprets events in ways that portrays Lincoln in the worst light, and he ignores context. Even McPherson's review associated with the book that you linked to says that Bennett's book is hopelessly flawed. Did you not read the review? Do you disagree with it? If so, why? Did you read the book? What about it did you find convincing?

Yes I did. not in its entirety, I'm closing upon the final chapters now. Please explain to me exatly what you mean by "He always interprets events in ways that portrays Lincoln in the worst light and he ignores context" Exactly which " ignored context" do you refer to? A far as McPherson's reviews are concerned, they appear to me as being nothing more that opinionated statements made through the views of a critic. ( but please keep in mind that this in only my own personal opinion...nothing more). All writers have critics. To me that's what makes them so great. Before I continue with any more comments on this book, I will wait until I am completely finished before I continue any further.

[Starguard]

Starguard,

Perhaps you should not just read webpages and post to the SDMB. Perhaps you should also spend some significant amount of time reading books. You'll find that it greatly repays the amount of time spent doing so.

Hi Wendy ;)

Have you read Lerone Bennett's book? if not, give it a try, you may find it rather interesting.

As far as Thomas Jerrerson is concerned, I would like to take this opprotunity to state that I was very wrong about many issues pertaining to the historical accomplishments of this man I will humbly admit that. But I would also like to bring to light that this is a man whose views on Slavery seems to jump all over the place and it doesn't seem clear to me that anyone knows for sure exactly where this man stood as far as slavery is concerned. Throughout time there seems to have been so much information about this man's personal life that has been lost to history that I don't believe that anyone will ever know exatly where he stood on slavery. For viewing the cited responses from members of this Message Board alone, there appears to be people ranging from Doctors who specialize in flurensic reseach to Historians with PHD'S that are still at odds over how many children he had (and from whom) to whether he opposed or supported slavery as a whole.

In General, it appears that there is a lot of misleading information out there that even with accredited cites and references, no one can know for sure

(ex. I am still looking for a cite about the supposed speech Sally Hemmings made to congress after being called upon by Jefferson. ) I can actually remeber reading this somewhere and I will definitely post ( or scan it) here for you and all to see..regardless if it actualy happened or not

[Starguard]

Typo: "For viewing the cited messages from members of this message board alone"

Should read " From viewing the cited messages from members of this message board alone"

[Wendell Wagner]

Starguard writes:

> But I would also like to bring to light that this is a man whose views on Slavery
> seems to jump all over the place and it doesn't seem clear to me that anyone
> knows for sure exactly where this man stood as far as slavery is concerned.

Perhaps on a personal level he disliked slavery. So what? All we know about are his public statements and his public actions. Publicly, he did nothing to end slavery. He owned slaves and didn't even free them in his will. He was elected only because slave-owning states supported him. He never publicly spoke against slavery. That's what's important. Jefferson never did anything to end slavery.

> Hi Wendy

I don't make up cutesy nicknames for you. Quit doing so for me. This is an indication that you have no arguments to make when you start calling people names.

Try reading a bunch of books about Jefferson before you start a thread on him, not just one.

[David Simmons]

... He owned slaves and didn't even free them in his will.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote about speaking of this in address to a college group. After the speech, Vonnegut wrote, one of the professors told him that Jefferson couldn't free his slaves because he didn't own them. They were collateral for various loans that Jefferson had taken out for living expenses and were actually owned by the lenders after Jefferson's death.

I know that sounds callous but the law of the time regarded slaves as property just like any other.

I believe Jefferson was nearly bankrupt in that his assets barely covered his debts at the time of his death.

[Starguard]

Starguard writes:

Perhaps on a personal level he disliked slavery. So what? All we know about are his public statements and his public actions. Publicly, he did nothing to end slavery. He owned slaves and didn't even free them in his will. He was elected only because slave-owning states supported him. He never publicly spoke against slavery. That's what's important. Jefferson never did anything to end slavery.

Try reading a bunch of books about Jefferson before you start a thread on him, not just one.

Dear Mrs Wagner :D

Please read this [url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7117/tjeff.htm]cite [url/] very carefully and then tell us what you think of it.

Also, (and I only ask this of you as a reference) please list for me the names and authors of any books YOU have read about this man that has you so convinced that he did nothing to end the slavery.

The reason I feel the way that I do about him is like this:

*In order for slavery to be stopped by anyone, someone must first bring it to the attention of others that it is wrong. In order to bring it to the attention of others, one must be in a stable position to do so. Please take very careful note of the first paragraph in the above cite. Read it two or three times before responding to these comments, and tell us your interpretation of it.


Also, if you would like a good Book Reference on his relations with Sally Hemmings, try reading this book:

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings;An American Controversy
by Annette Gordon-Reed

If you haven't read this book, check it out. From Introduction to conclusion its only 235 pages long

As soon as I finish Lerone Bennett Jr's book "Forced into Glory, Abraham Lincolns White Dream" I'll start searching for more Jefferson material to study (an cite as references) as we go along...You do the same. :)

[Starguard]

Dear Mrs Wagner :D

Please read this Look here (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7117/tjeff.htm]cite [url/] very carefully and then tell us what you think of it.

Lets try this again. [url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7117/tjeff.htm)

[Starguard]

Lets try this again. Look here (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7117/tjeff.htm)

I have absolutely no idea of why this is happening, but...here it is again (spelled out this time) http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7117/tjeff.htm

[Wendell Wagner]

Garry Wills _"Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power_.

Starguard writes:

> Dear Mrs Wagner

Again, this is proof that you have no argument. You're calling people names rather than replying to their arguments. When you're willing to make arguments rather than calling me names, then I'll answer you.

David Simmons writes:

> Kurt Vonnegut wrote about speaking of this in address to a college group.
> After the speech, Vonnegut wrote, one of the professors told him that
> Jefferson couldn't free his slaves because he didn't own them. They were
> collateral for various loans that Jefferson had taken out for living expenses and
> were actually owned by the lenders after Jefferson's death.

Yes, I understand this. But we have no reason to think that he would have freed his slaves in his will if he had had the money to do it. Again, we have no insight into his private thoughts on slavery. One argument seems to be that Jefferson had to keep quiet any anti-slavery thoughts he had because he knew that he would never have been elected if he came across as being anti-slavery. Again, we have no idea if he was really anti-slavery in his private thoughts. All Jefferson's public words and actions were in support of slavery. And that's what really mattered.

[David Simmons]

Garry Wills _"Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power_.

Starguard writes:

> Dear Mrs Wagner

Again, this is proof that you have no argument. You're calling people names rather than replying to their arguments. When you're willing to make arguments rather than calling me names, then I'll answer you.

David Simmons writes:

> Kurt Vonnegut wrote about speaking of this in address to a college group.
> After the speech, Vonnegut wrote, one of the professors told him that
> Jefferson couldn't free his slaves because he didn't own them. They were
> collateral for various loans that Jefferson had taken out for living expenses and
> were actually owned by the lenders after Jefferson's death.

Yes, I understand this. But we have no reason to think that he would have freed his slaves in his will if he had had the money to do it. Again, we have no insight into his private thoughts on slavery. One argument seems to be that Jefferson had to keep quiet any anti-slavery thoughts he had because he knew that he would never have been elected if he came across as being anti-slavery. Again, we have no idea if he was really anti-slavery in his private thoughts. All Jefferson's public words and actions were in support of slavery. And that's what really mattered.


Oh, I agree that Jefferson was a slave owning Southern planter who had no part in the eventual overturning of that institution. Washington, Madison, and others likewise. Did any of the Founders from Virginia and other Southern states argue for a strong stand against slavery?

None of them was able to get past his background.

[Starguard]

Garry Wills _"Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power_.

Starguard writes:

> Dear Mrs Wagner

Again, this is proof that you have no argument. You're calling people names rather than replying to their arguments. When you're willing to make arguments rather than calling me names, then I'll answer you.


I do not call you a name, I just simply identified you as the person my question was directed to...Now, would you please answer my question?

[Starguard]

TYPO: "I do not" should read "I did not"

[Wendell Wagner]

Starguard,

You have given up on rational argument, so I see no reason to continue this discussion.

[Starguard]

Starguard,

You have given up on rational argument, so I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Im other words, you have not answer for me.

If youve forgotten the question, I'll ask it again.

Please read this cite (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7117/tjeff.htm) very carefully while placing close attention to the first paragraph,and explain to me why you still believe that Thomas Jefferson supported slavery. I've already explained to you why I believe he did not, and have provided several references that support my thoery. All I ask of you is that you provide an explanation (with cites) that supports your reasons to differ.

When referring to the above cite , please read very carefully the entire report before responding. If I get no response, You will leave me no other alternative but to believe that you do not have any strong evidence to suport your beliefs and have given up because of it.

[Captain Amazing]

I do not call you a name, I just simply identified you as the person my question was directed to...

I think he's mad you called him "Mrs. Wagner", with Wendell bein' a boy and all.

[Starguard]

I think he's mad you called him "Mrs. Wagner", with Wendell bein' a boy and all.

Oh..,My Apologies!!! I honestly thought wendell was a woman. My sister has a female friend named Wendell ( We call her Wendy for short)

Wendell..Again I apologise :o :smack:

[Starguard]

Wendell, You have mail :(

[Little Nemo]

I honestly thought wendell was a woman. My sister has a female friend named Wendell ( We call her Wendy for short)
So you made a sweeping generalization about a subject which you know very little about based on a single item of information. Then when someone who knew more about the subject than you did pointed out your error, you ignored them and continued to believe you were right.

Spot a pattern here?

[Starguard]

So you made a sweeping generalization about a subject which you know very little about based on a single item of information. Then when someone who knew more about the subject than you did pointed out your error, you ignored them and continued to believe you were right.

Spot a pattern here?

#1) If you would carefully read through all of the cites and references that I provided in the majority of my postings, I believe that I provided cites to verify the majority of all the statements that I made. I did admit that there were some areas that I was wrong about and was man enough to admit it, but at the same time I also pointed out that the life and times of Thomas Jefferson has proven to be a very controversial topic that tends to jump back and forth about his views on slavery and sometimes tend to wander all over the place. As for your accusation that I "ignored someone that knew more about the subject", Point this "ignored " person out to me. I made a strong effort to respond to every comment that appeared to be aimed directly at me and will continue to do so... Please, explain yourself?

[Captain Amazing]

Please explain to me exatly what you mean by "He always interprets events in ways that portrays Lincoln in the worst light and he ignores context" Exactly which " ignored context" do you refer to?

First let me say that it's been some time since I've read the book, and I don't own a copy, so I can't say "On page 56, Bennett says...". However, one example, IIRC, involves the Lincoln-Douglas debates and, more generally, Lincoln's comments regarding blacks as both a candidate and a congressman.

For example, Lincoln said in the debate at Ottawa:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position

and again at Charleston:

I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship.…Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it.

Bennett takes quotes like these and says things like, "See, that proves it...Lincoln hated black people." What he fails to take into account is, first of all, Lincoln lived, and gave these speeches in southern Illinois, where nobody believed blacks were equal to whites. You would have had problems finding any white person anywhere in the country back then who thought so. That was a rare position even among abolitionists, and if Lincoln had said that whites and blacks were equal, there was no chance he could have won any election. In fact, the fact that he has to deny the charges gives hints as to what people perceived his position to be, and if you read the debates, you'll find that Douglas is always suggesting that Lincoln supports full political and social equality for blacks, because he knows that if he can make the audience believe that, he's sure to be appointed Senator.

Lincoln was, before anything else, a shrewd politician. This is something, I think, that a lot of people who pick up Lincoln's speeches for the first time, don't understand, in part because Lincoln has been enshrined in our national mythology as "Honest Abe" and above partisan politics. They take what he says at face value, and in doing so, they miss a lot of the nuances of his words. I've found Bennett seems to do that. He seems to believe that Lincoln should have taken a firm and absolute moral stand against slavery...that as soon as he became president, he should have said, "All slaves are immediately free everywhere", just because it was the morally right thing to do.

I won't argue with him that it would have been the morally right thing to do, but it wouldn't have been successful. It would have been politically disasterous for Lincoln, and it would certainly have caused Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland to secede. It very well might have caused rioting similar to the New York Draft riots, and would have been disasterous in general.