Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Guess you don't know.
You're running off on tangents buddy. You're also off topic.
By observing his actions instead of just taking him at his word.I was wondering how your views on Jefferson were formed?.
Sure and in the 1700s, there were plenty of white people who thought that slavery was cruel. Jefferson himself called it cruel. There were certainly plenty of black people who thought it was cruel.I honestly don't know... but I've heard justifications of slavery back then.... much like how we treat children. Children are essentially slaves to their parents. Beating used to be a common thing for discipline, not just of slaves, but for children and criminals as well. I would think he would think it was cruel to unjustly beat a slave just because you felt like it.
You have to literally have to think like you're in the 1700s
Guess you don't know.
Sure and in the 1700s, there were plenty of white people who thought that slavery was cruel. Jefferson himself called it cruel. There were certainly plenty of black people who thought it was cruel.
Does it really matter who decided? Do you even bother to spend even a second thinking about your questions?
Nevertheless it was an issue that could not be overcome during the founding of the US, but eventually was as we all know. My guess is that Jefferson knew it was wrong from an intellectual perspective, but his debt, lifestyle and I think some people thought that the slaves couldn't survive on their own kept him from acting. It was definitely a crossroads, but he wasn't unusual for a southerner of the time. Nevertheless his ideals were the foundation upon which slaves were eventually freed. His influence on creating a self governing country cannot be overlooked. Should his memorial be torn down....hell no. Anyone who would go as far as tearing down those monuments is just radical.
There were even black slaveowners.
Most of whom used slavery to buy and protect their loved ones. Of those who did not, I suspect they knew that slavery was cruel just like white slave owners.There were even black slaveowners.
Now we know slavery was legitimate.
I've never read that, but no doubt that was used as a clever loophole.Most of whom used slavery to buy and protect their loved ones. Of those who did not, I suspect they knew that slavery was cruel just like white slave owners.
We know that it was even practiced by a few blacks during the Colonial Era. So it was considered legitimate.
What does that even mean? Nazism was "legitimate", genocide of native Americans was "legitimate". Too many people seem willing to dismiss evil because it was the accepted mindset at the time, everybody was doing it, etc.
Yeah, it was clever.I've never read that, but no doubt that was used as a clever loophole.
As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."
Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. That's the good news.
Black Slave Owners: Did They Exist? - The Root
Who's dismissing it? I think you're making **** up. You realize we're talking about history don't you?
Yeah, it was clever.
From The Root:
The article also talks about Black slave owners who owned slaves for other, less benevolent, reasons.
What are we going to be judged on 200 to 300 years from now? The use of fossil fuels? Internal Combustion Engines? 40 hour work week? What normal, everyday action will be considered completely foul and totally rejected by our great great grandchildren? It is silly to weigh the actions of those who lived in the 1700 - 1800 against the mindsets of the 21st century.
If you want to understand his reason maybe you should read up on it then. I'm just trying to be factual.Your commentary is consistently trivializing it, and yes, pointing out that he needed slavery because of his lavish lifestyle and debt isn't making the grade!
No, she's actually kind of annoying with her pseudo-intellectual glasses, weight issues and deplorable fashion sense.
If you want to understand his reason maybe you should read up on it then. I'm just trying to be factual.
What are we going to be judged on 200 to 300 years from now? The use of fossil fuels? Internal Combustion Engines? 40 hour work week? What normal, everyday action will be considered completely foul and totally rejected by our great great grandchildren? It is silly to weigh the actions of those who lived in the 1700 - 1800 against the mindsets of the 21st century.
Yeah, it was clever.
From The Root:
The article also talks about Black slave owners who owned slaves for other, less benevolent, reasons.
Yes, the author of the DOI NEEDED slavery to service his opulent debt. Got it the first time.
My statements allow all those exceptions to happen... The fact is, slavery was much more morally ambiguous than it is today, GREATLY so.... and I don't think you have the right to act all high and mighty because you were not born in that time... you have it easy, it's easier for you to realize and make the moral choices.
Oh good, glad you understand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?