Founding Fathers under attack: Students demand Thomas Jefferson statue removal

No - history doesn't change. And I'm thinking they do know (at least a little bit) about history, or they wouldn't be asking for it to be taken down.

Like others, I don't necessarily agree with it being taken down, but we all have to accept that the future belongs to the next generations. If it is their desire to remove statues from universities and put them in museums, that will be their decision.

 

The system of government he set up (oligarchic rule by rich land-owning white men) was illegal, which is why we've spent the last two hundred years tearing it down with Amendments to allow non-rich, non-white, non-men to vote and be represented as well.

 

The Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, but actually putting my life on the line in combat. But I'm not a rich slaveowner so I couldn't secure a diplomatic post in a country that would give me shelter if the war failed.

 

Obviously, you do not know your history as Jefferson would have been the first one to endorse their actions. This assuming the reports are accurate.

Go Pride!*





*campus password

 

Of course you have no proof to back that statement up.

And your accusation is flatly contradicted by Jefferson's own attempt to have slavery legally abolished in Virginia.

Meanwhile, Spanish and Portuguese slave-owners in central and south America continued to import African slaves by the thousands. Apparently, they didn't get the memo that ending the transatlantic slave trade would make them richer.

 

In other words, you participated in the wanton destruction of an entire civilization. How heroic of you.

No, you're just a guy who invaded and occupied a country that was far weaker than your own. That must have taken a lot of courage.

 

Jefferson's attempt to abolish slavery in a state where the government was entirely made up of slaveowners is about as meaningful as the Democrats trying to pass a bill requiring Presidential candidates to disclose their tax forms with Republicans in control of the Senate and Trump in control of veto.

Slave-OWNERS weren't the ones also importing slaves. They didn't own or operate slave ships. The plantation owners bought from slave traders. The slave traders lost money from ending the slave trade. Slave owners (aka the people who actually used the slaves) got richer because each of their slaves instantly became more valuable as the supply was artificially restricted. That's basic economics.

 

As much courage as George Washington invading and burning the Iroquois lands? Was he heroic when he destroyed their entire civilization?

 

The fact that he made such proposals in a State dominated by slaveowners only makes it more meaningful.

If banning the transatlantic slave trade made slaveowners richer, then why didn't the slaveowners in central and south America ban it? Why did they continue to allow thousands and thousands of African slaves to be imported into their colonies? Do you not understand that the more cheap slave labor someone has access to, the more profitable their plantation will be?

 

No, he was not. And neither were you. So maybe you should step down from your high horse for a moment and try to introduce some nuance into your position.

 

Knowing they would fail, makes them empty propaganda, especially when he wouldn't walk the walk and free his own slaves.

Different kinds of slavery. In South America and Central America, slaves were used in types of agriculture that had very high attrition rates of killed or maimed slaves. They needed constant replacements.

Southern slaveowners in the Americas didn't engage in those types of agriculture and didn't have the turn-over that slavery in Latin America did.

 

So you don't honor George Washington, correct? He was a man who slaughtered a weaker civilization.

 

Most countries where slaves were imported banned the trade years before ending slavery.

I know that you're arguing, as always to be a contrarian, but I know that you have at least the potential to debate honestly. Up to the mid to late 19th century blacks, and other non whites (even some whites in the case of italians, jews and irish) were considered inferior. That was THE NORM! That the early 19th century saw a rise in abolisionism doesn't change the fact that those abolisionist were a minority. and didn't dictate what was the norm.

 

Yet owning them was not the norm. Abolitionism already existed in Jefferson's day and plenty of abolitionists didn't own slaves or freed their slaves.

Jefferson kept his slaves his entire life in spite of his supposed support for their freedom because his personal privilege and wealth meant more to him than other's freedom.

 

The fact that most couldn't afford them doesn't change the fact that it was the norm to consider black inferior and to enslave or exploit them.

For a silly analogy: Vegan exist today and are a minority. Until society pass a law freeing cows I'll keep on eating steak because I always eaten steak, everyone around me eat steak and I know damn well that those cows won't make it on their own if I free them. I also know that those vegan don't really care all that much about cows since once they've ban steak they'll slaughter those cow so we can't "exploit" them anymore, just like PETA does with pets that people give up.

 

Yet if you claimed that you support the ending of cow eating while you shovel a cheeseburger in your face, you should be called out for being a lying hypocrite.

 

In your opinion.

In my opinion, it shows Jefferson's willingness to promote a radical position even though he knew it would not be well received by his contemporaries.

Because it was just that simple, right? You'd just free your slave and he'd walk down to the local Starbucks and get a job. Problem solved.

They were killed and maimed so frequently because the slave owners in central and south America didn't have the same moral and ethical reservations about slavery that men like Jefferson did.

They worked their slaves to death and then replaced them with fresh, cheap slaves as and when they needed. There was no economic reason preventing Jefferson and other slaveowners from employing similar methods. They simply chose not to out of moral considerations.

 

He could have freed his slaves and paid them, except then he wouldn't be as wealthy or privileged. So we know he wouldn't do that. It mattered to him more than other's freedom.

 

I honor his achievements and criticize his failures. I do not view him as wholly good or wholly bad.

 

Jefferson could have done more. He was not perfect. But he had many redeeming qualities that you refuse to acknowledge for whatever reason.

 

And that's where you are making a mistake since both aren't mutually exclusive. As I said, if new legislation comes to be I'll comply with it even if I know those cows will be slaughtered anyway.

Jefferson didn't free his slaves because, one, there wasn't any legal framework for doing so, and two, he knew those slaves would be worst off if freed during his lifetime. They would have been relegated to second class citizen without having the security that being a Jefferson slave brought, that is, a roof over their head, clothing, food, medical care. This was the early 19th century, not 2019... They couldn't register for food stamps and social security.

 

I call for an end to industrialized farming practices, yet I still eat food produced by that industry. I admit that I'm not living up to my ideals, but I still believe in those ideals and take steps to help bring them into existence. You seem to believe that perfection is the only acceptable standard. I wonder, do you live up to your own lofty standards?

 

There was a legal framework, but it was fairly murky. And as you noted, manumitting a slave meant sending them out into the wider world where economic opportunities would have been scant. After Lincoln "freed" the slaves, many of them just went back to working on the plantation as de facto slaves, even if they were legally allowed to leave. Many others simply died from disease or starvation. None of that means Jefferson was right to keep his slaves, of course. But "freeing" them was not nearly as easy or as simple as some would have us believe.

 

Well they're asking me to pay for the tuition.

 

They will have to disarm people first. A vote for gun control is a vote to destroy America.