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

[David_Simmons]

@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.

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]

@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.

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]

@Wendell Wagner

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 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]

@Starguard

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]

@Captain Amazing

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]

@Little Nemo

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]

@Starguard

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.