Biden and Democrats Abandon Jefferson over Equality, Not Slavery
By: Claire Brighn
The war of the bi coastal secular progressive elites against 1776 America, the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the constitution continues on unabated. Their latest offense is the action of the Jack asses of New York City in removing a statue of founding father and author of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson from their city hall. The seeded article nails it when describing the motivation of the progressive left in doing so.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Biden and Democrats Abandon Jefferson over Equality, Not Slavery
AMAC Exclusive – By Claire Brighn
On Monday, a statue of Thomas Jefferson that had stood watch over the New York City Council chambers for 187 years was carted away to be relocated just a few miles North at the New York Historical Society. The removal follows a vote by a mayoral commission in October to remove the statue after months of increased pressure from leftists on the City Council, and is the culmination of a decades-long campaign by progressive city leaders, who claim that the statue is offensive to minority groups because Jefferson was a slaveowner.
As the statue finally departs City Hall, it marks a disgraceful final chapter for a monument with a storied history. But relegating Thomas Jefferson’s statue to some dusty corner in a museum will not likely end the left’s war against the founders generally, and it certainly won’t stop their crusade against Thomas Jefferson specifically.
The author of the Declaration of Independence and the nation’s third president has, in recent years, become the radical left’s highest value target for destruction. But despite what the left is publicly saying these days, their energy and urgency in cancelling Thomas Jefferson from American history does not appear to be because Jefferson was a slaveholder. After all, George Washington was a slaveholder too and has, at least thus far, not been subject to the same removal-at-all-costs fervor.
Rather, Jefferson appears to be despised by the far left today for the same reason that he was nearly universally acclaimed for most of American history: he is the author of the principle of human equality contained in the Declaration of Independence that founded our country in 1776. And the Declaration’s principle of human equality is very much out of fashion with today’s radical left—which is trying to turn the very year “1776” into a symbol of hate.
For Jefferson, the promise of America was a place where a new notion of equality could take root. Every single person’s worth and individual rights were, he asserted, not defined by a king or a government, but rather “endowed by their Creator” and are “unalienable.” At the same time, Jefferson recognized that the practice of slavery was at odds with this understanding of the moral universe and drafted a passage in the Declaration – which was later struck by the Congress – that called slavery “the cruel war against human nature.”
This new American proposition that all were created equal was, of course, one that would not be fulfilled in Jefferson’s time, and was a vision that Jefferson himself never fully adhered to in his personal life. However, it nonetheless laid the foundation for the establishment of the United States. Our founding principle of equality led to the abolition movement, and eventually to a bloody Civil War that eradicated slavery from this country.
Jefferson’s vision of equality also underpinned the Civil Rights Movement a century later. In his famous “I Have a Dream Speech,” Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously called for all Americans to “live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’” The words of the slaveowner Jefferson became the rallying cry for the end of racial segregation in America.
Yes, Jefferson was a slaveowner, but even a cursory understanding of American history quickly reveals that his primary significance is as an intellectual force for freedom and equality in the world.
Today’s far left politicians now like to repeat the line that America “never lived up to” the principles of the Declaration. President Biden has said as much repeatedly throughout his campaign and the early months of his presidency. But if the new left really cared about living up to our founding principles, as so many generations of Americans have before, would they not want to keep alive the memory of the man who penned them?
Instead, the push has been not only to “contextualize” or “reframe” Jefferson, but to erase him from history entirely. Charles Barron, a New York Assembly Member who was on the City Council 20 years ago when the push to remove the Jefferson statue first began, made as much clear when he said that removal of the statue alone is not enough. “We started this battle twenty years ago and the only reason why they are coming up with it now is because people are looking at deeper, systemic problems in this system and calling for radical system changes so now they’ll give us a statue removal.” Instead, he says, the statue must be “destroyed.”
Barron’s comments unintentionally betray the true reason the left is seeking to erase Jefferson from American history. It’s not Jefferson they are after; it’s “radical system changes”—in other words, a political revolution against the history of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the American republic itself.
Today’s far left envisions a society of precisely the opposite nature to the ideal Jefferson advanced. They want a world in which a person’s worth is essentially defined by their racial and gender identity, and where differences in these traits mean that people are very much not “created equal” and therefore don’t enjoy equal protection under the law. As much is evidenced by Critical Race Theory’s claims that every person either falls into an “oppressor” or “oppressed” class based on their racial identity, or by the left’s claims that police departments are just modern day “slave patrols.”
To combat this supposed systemic problem, “equality” is not enough for the left – what is instead required is a wholesale overhaul of the American system, starting with Jefferson on down. In the left’s vision, the law should be applied unequally among groups, dependent on the race, gender, or class of whatever group an individual falls into.
This did not used to be the official position of the Democratic Party. In 1987, for example, shortly after announcing his bid for the Democratic nomination for president, Joe Biden evoked the name of Jefferson in describing his own upbringing: “That was always a constant dinner table conversation, whether it was World War II or Thomas Jefferson, so I think I had a real love for history, and I think that kind of matured into my interest, though very, very limited involvement, in the Civil Rights Movement.” (Whether Biden played any role whatsoever in the Civil Rights Movement remains a contested matter.)
Now, however, Biden’s energy is not in calling for Americans to live up to our founding ideals. Instead, Biden condemns Americans (and America) for, in his words, “never living up to” the principles of the Declaration. This new Biden rhetoric is explained by Biden’s recent conversion to the belief that the United States is a “systemically racist” country founded not on freedom and equality, but rather on hate and human bondage. When President Biden was asked by Anderson Cooper at a CNN Presidential Town Hall in Cincinnati, Ohio, about what he thought of the New York City Council’s recent decision to remove the Jefferson statue from its legislative chamber, he replied, “It’s up to the locality to decide,” offering no defense of the American founding father he once said he revered.
Biden also piled on the effort to erase Jefferson’s legacy by disbanding President Trump’s 1776 Commission on day one of his administration. Biden and the radical leftists who helped get him elected can’t risk letting the American people know the truth about their heritage. If they did, the game that the left is playing would be up and their grip on power would dramatically weaken.
It is thus not Jefferson the slaveholder that Biden and the left seek to banish, but the principles of the Declaration of Independence. For Biden and the radical leftists that have now taken over today’s Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson’s vision of liberty and equality articulated in the Declaration is really what makes Jefferson so unpalatable, because it undercuts Biden and the Democrat’s narrative of the United States as an inherently evil and racist nation whose institutions are corrupt to the core.
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
Dear George Letter
What the Founding Fathers really thought - Second in a Series
So did his slaves but... Whatever.
The founding fathers including Jefferson set up the framework for the country to get rid of slavery.
Taking down the Jefferson statue was dumb as hell IMO. The guy was not perfect, none of the founders were, but they were also products of their time and the ideas they championed have expanded well within and beyond the US.
I think the overall good Jefferson did outweighs the fact that he was a slave owner. His beliefs and passions changed the world, for people of all races, eventually.
If we pull his statue down then we need to pull all statues down because no one is perfect. No more statues of anyone ever.
The left would be wise to avoid the founders in these social justice movements. Confederates? Take them down all fucking day, goddamn traitors, but leave the founders and Lincoln alone.
And to be fair, Jefferson was not a believer in equality. Not at all. He viewed non whites and women as inferior, intellectually at least, to white men. But nonetheless, his ideas regarding governance and personal liberties were embraced and held up by all groups.
Will wonders never cease? I actually agree with most of what you wrote!
I am curious as to what you disagree with.
I disagree with removing of any of our history at all. I don’t see where Jefferson saw women as intellectually inferior to men. Considering his exposure to his friend then enemy then friend’s wife Abigail Adams, that would be surprising if proven…
I don’t think certain things should be celebrated, outside of a museum, like the confederacy. Fucking traitors.
Read more books, and no, I won’t read them to you, you aren’t of my children.
Specify. A lot of things could be surprising.
Victor Davis Hanson's "The Real Fascism: Part Three"
https:// victorhanson.com/the-real-fasci sm-part-three/
Thanks for putting that here. Last time I seeded a great Victor Davis Hansen article the left avoided his scholarship like the plague upon their little brains his works are. Something about the new blue confederacy.
It's always a pleasure to remind people that we must learn from history.
Sounds like Victor has zero clue what fascism is.
Fascism ( / ˈ f æ ʃ ɪ z əm / ) is a form of far-right , authoritarian ultranationalism [1] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, [2] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. [3] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I , before spreading to other European countries . [3] Opposed to anarchism , democracy , liberalism , and Marxism , fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left–right spectrum . [3] [4]
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A military citizenship arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. [5] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens. [5]
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. [6] A fascist state is led by a strong leader (such as a dictator ) and a martial law government composed of the members of the governing fascist party to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. [6] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views imperialism , political violence and war as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. [7] Fascists advocate a mixed economy , with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and economic interventionist policies. [8] The extreme authoritarianism and nationalism of fascism often manifests a belief in racial purity or a master race , usually synthesized with some variant of racism or bigotry of a demonized " Other "; the idea of racial purity has motivated fascist regimes to commit massacres , forced sterilizations , genocides , mass killings , or forced deportations against a perceived "Other". [9]
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist , and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions of neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe contemporary parties of the far-right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th-century fascist movements. [3] [10]
Definitions
Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism. [18] [ page needed ] Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall." [19] Each different group described as fascist has at least some unique elements, and many definitions of fascism have been criticized as either too broad or too narrow. [20] According to many scholars, fascism—especially once in power—has historically attacked communism, conservatism, and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right. [21] One common definition of the term, frequently cited by reliable sources as a standard definition, is that of historian Stanley G. Payne . [22]
Payne's definition of fascism focuses on three concepts:
In his book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them , Professor Jason Stanley observed: "The leader proposes that only he can solve it and all of his political opponents are enemies or traitors." Stanley says recent global events as of 2020, including the pandemic and the protests , have substantiated his concern about how fascist rhetoric is showing up in politics and policies around the world. [24] Historian John Lukacs argues that there is no such thing as generic fascism. He claims that Nazism and communism are essentially manifestations of populism and that states such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are more different than similar. [25] Roger Griffin describes fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism ." [26] Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: "(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism, and (iii) the myth of decadence." [27] In Griffin's view, fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism" built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist "armed party" politics opposing socialism and liberalism, and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence. [28] [ page needed ]
In Against the Fascist Creep , Alexander Reid Ross writes regarding Griffin's view: Following the Cold War and shifts in fascist organizing techniques, a number of scholars have moved toward the minimalist 'new consensus' refined by Roger Griffin: 'the mythic core' of fascism is 'a populist form of palingenetic ultranationalism .' That means that fascism is an ideology that draws on old, ancient, and even arcane myths of racial, cultural, ethnic, and national origins to develop a plan for the 'new man.'" [29] Griffin himself explored this 'mythic' or 'eliminable' core of fascism with his concept of post-fascism to explore the continuation of Nazism in the modern era. [30] Additionally, other historians have applied this minimalist core to explore proto-fascist movements. [31]
Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser argue that although fascism "flirted with populism ... in an attempt to generate mass support", it is better seen as an elitist ideology. They cite in particular its exaltation of the Leader, the race, and the state, rather than the people. They see populism as a "thin-centered ideology" with a "restricted morphology" that necessarily becomes attached to "thick-centered" ideologies such as fascism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus populism can be found as an aspect of many specific ideologies, without necessarily being a defining characteristic of those ideologies. They refer to the combination of populism, authoritarianism and ultranationalism as "a marriage of convenience." [32]
Robert Paxton says: "[Fascism is] a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [33] [ page needed ] Roger Eatwell defines fascism as "an ideology that strives to forge social rebirth based on a holistic -national radical Third Way ", [34] [ page needed ] while Walter Laqueur sees the core tenets of fascism as "self-evident: nationalism; social Darwinism ; racialism, the need for leadership, a new aristocracy, and obedience; and the negation of the ideals of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution." [35]
Racism was a key feature of German fascism, for which the Holocaust was a high priority. According to the historiography of genocide , "In dealing with the Holocaust, it is the consensus of historians that Nazi Germany targeted Jews as a race, not as a religious group." [36] Umberto Eco , [37] Kevin Passmore, [38] John Weiss, [39] [ page needed ] Ian Adams, [40] [ page needed ] and Moyra Grant [41] stress racism as a characteristic component of German fascism. Historian Robert Soucy stated that "Hitler envisioned the ideal German society as a Volksgemeinschaft , a racially unified and hierarchically organized body in which the interests of individuals would be strictly subordinate to those of the nation, or Volk." [42] Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by one theoretical commonality: all traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum , catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities. [3]
Position in the political spectrum
Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum . [3] [4] Such scholarship focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism . [43] Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism , which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the political right by explaining: "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be." [44]
Fascism's origins are complex and include many seemingly contradictory viewpoints, ultimately centered around a mythos of national rebirth from decadence. [28] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who drew upon both left-wing organizational tactics and right-wing political views. [45] Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s. [46] A major element of fascist ideology that has been deemed to be far right is its stated goal to promote the right of a supposedly superior people to dominate, while purging society of supposedly inferior elements. [47]
In the 1920s, the Italian Fascists described their ideology as right-wing in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism , stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." [48] Mussolini stated that fascism's position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue for fascists: "Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center. ... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words." [49]
Major Italian groups politically on the right, especially rich landowners and big business, feared an uprising by groups on the left, such as sharecroppers and labour unions. [50] They welcomed Fascism and supported its violent suppression of opponents on the left. [51] The accommodation of the political right into the Italian Fascist movement in the early 1920s created internal factions within the movement. The "Fascist left" included Michele Bianchi , Giuseppe Bottai , Angelo Oliviero Olivetti , Sergio Panunzio , and Edmondo Rossoni , who were committed to advancing national syndicalism as a replacement for parliamentary liberalism in order to modernize the economy and advance the interests of workers and the common people. [52] The "Fascist right" included members of the paramilitary Blackshirts and former members of the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI). [52] The Blackshirts wanted to establish Fascism as a complete dictatorship, while the former ANI members, including Alfredo Rocco , sought to institute an authoritarian corporatist state to replace the liberal state in Italy while retaining the existing elites. [52] Upon accommodating the political right, there arose a group of monarchist fascists who sought to use fascism to create an absolute monarchy under King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy . [52]
After the fall of the Fascist regime in Italy , when King Victor Emmanuel III forced Mussolini to resign as head of government and placed him under arrest in 1943, Mussolini was rescued by German forces. While continuing to rely on Germany for support, Mussolini and the remaining loyal Fascists founded the Italian Social Republic with Mussolini as head of state. Mussolini sought to re-radicalize Italian Fascism, declaring that the Fascist state had been overthrown because Italian Fascism had been subverted by Italian conservatives and the bourgeoisie. [53] Then the new Fascist government proposed the creation of workers' councils and profit-sharing in industry, although the German authorities, who effectively controlled northern Italy at this point, ignored these measures and did not seek to enforce them. [53]
A number of post-World War II fascist movements described themselves as a Third Position outside the traditional political spectrum. Falange Española de las JONS leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera said: "[B]asically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile." [54]
Fascist as a pejorative
The term fascist has been used as a pejorative , [55] regarding varying movements across the far right of the political spectrum. [56] George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist, ' " [56] and in 1946 that "...'Fascism' has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable." [57]
Despite fascist movements' history of anti-communism , Communist states have sometimes been referred to as fascist , typically as an insult. It has been applied to Marxist–Leninist regimes in Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh . [58] Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet split , and the Soviets used the term to denounce Chinese Marxists [59] and social democracy , coining a new term in social fascism .
In the United States, Herbert Matthews of The New York Times asked in 1946: "Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?" [60] J. Edgar Hoover , longtime FBI director and ardent anti-communist, wrote extensively of red fascism . [61] The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s was sometimes called fascist . Historian Peter Amann states that, "Undeniably, the Klan had some traits in common with European fascism—chauvinism, racism, a mystique of violence, an affirmation of a certain kind of archaic traditionalism—yet their differences were fundamental ... [the KKK] never envisioned a change of political or economic system." [62]
Professor Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times." [63] [ page needed ] [ clarification needed ] "Fascist" is sometimes applied to post-World War II organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term neo-fascist . [64]
Fascism is not, has not and never will be a left wing ideology.
It is a left wing ideology and it’s like a blood libel against us to in any way equate national socialism with the right. Victor Davis Hansen got it exactly right despite the bigoted bias of Wikipedia claiming the opposite
Fascism is not, has not and never will be a left wing ideology.
Oh, from wikipedia?
Fascism is exactly what we are getting from the left, starting with the federal government trying to intimidate parents.
one need only look at the Mussolini's (a socialist) writings to understand the left wing and anti-capitalist nature of fascism.
Fascism is extremely right wing, maybe with the exception of economics because no one can really narrow it down on that front.
Intimidate parents? Lol how so?
Based on your comment I know for an absolute fact you have no clue what you are talking about.
Fascism, like any other left wing movement, is a collectivist movement. "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state" was Mussolini's description of the regime. Compare that to Thomas Jefferson. Right wing ideology is founded upon the rights of the individual, fascism upon the rights of the group.
Again, you know nothing about the ideology.
Whether we call it Fascism, Marxism, or Communism, it is currently quite close in all categories when it comes to the federal government using the DoJ/FBI to intimidate parents for questioning what their children are learning in school.
It is the LEFT, via NEA and AFT, that deprived our children of their right to an in-school education with certified teachers, yet never provided any SCIENCE that backed up their bogus claims.
Using the same "-isms", it is the LEFT that has needlessly forced small businesses to close and go bankrupt. It is the LEFT that has sent mixed messages about masks and the actual origins of Covid-19 for two years.
Worse is the 2021 left wing federal government issuing UNCONSTITUTIONAL vaccination mandates with threats of firing nurses, doctors, firemen, other first responders WHO WERE "HEROES" in 2020 and risked their lives to protect us every day ... before vaccines.
Topping off the LEFT WING authoritarian federal government score card is the FIRING of our military members because they refuse the vaccine. Many already have had Covid-19, but that doesn't matter to American Marxists in the White House, Pentagon, NIAID, NIH, and CDC. These military men and women who have loyally served our nation will also lose their pensions.
Anyone who believes that Fascism in the USA is "right wing" has lived in a cave since the CCP gifted us with Covid-19 in November 2019.
So communists, fascists, and socialists are the same?
So what is the right ideology?
Save yourself time, it is right wing nazism.
The current regime in DC and it’s enablers are the true fascists in America today.
By labeling us as domestic terrorists and turning the FBI loose against us.
Why not discuss the point he made that you disagree with instead of making it personal toward him?
Clearly he does know about it.
Comparing American conservatives to Nazis is simply ridiculous hyperbole and nothing more.
No.
[REMOVED, warning try to be careful]
What “point”, I forgot.
Jesus fucking Christ dude put it in a single comment.
You're totally without a clue
In a nut shell, they want the moronic concept of identity politics because it reflects that one demographic is superior to the other. To indoctrinate this gave us CRT (or what ever they are calling it this week) and began demonizing those from their own neighborhoods who put on a uniform to protect that neighborhood.
And Biden as well as his AG Garland are trying to use police powers of the federal government to crack down upon parents objecting to CRT, the 1619 propaganda, mixing trans with girls, and porno literature. Thank God Garland never got on to the Supreme Court! Biden also hates it that the 1776 commission he abolished stayed intact with private funding and local school districts all across America are using their or Hillsdale College 1776 research.
I have seen where police refuse to target portents at school board meetings. The mere idea of targeting somebody over something they SAY is idiotic. Not to mention constitutional.
The whole 1619 project and CRT is some of the dumbest things I've read. That's the kind of indoctrination we hear of coming out of China and N. Korea.
And boom, the entire discussion devolves into retardation by blaming the current state entirely on one side. Nice job.
And boom, here you are making statements with nothing to back up your claims.
Your comment is my backup support.
Typical bullshit from the left. All mouth, no substance.
Lol, and your substance was?
No, it wasn’t at all anything like that….
[Deleted]
Removing the statue accomplishes very little if anything in the way of improving race relations.
Stupid people will eventually want all mention of anyone who ever owned a slave to be removed from society if their ideas win over sane folks.
Sure wish those stupid folks would do something actually PRODUCTIVE for race relations instead of this infantile crap.
So how long before the dumbasses demand that the Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Memorials be brought down?
SMH at the sheer lunacy and media coverage these idiots and their stupid crusade garners.
They are targeting Jefferson more because of the Declaration of Independence he wrote than because he was a slave owner. That document is anathema to the bi coastal secular progressive elites as the seeded article points out.
Dude, because I am about to be suspended again…. That is not why people are after Jefferson, they are going after his slavery record, which is fair. Now does that mean he should be stricken from the record and all his statues removed etc, of course not. Can he be criticized and his legacy repainted because of slavery, of course. Stop with you lying horseshit.
I havne yet to hear a single person say “that whole Declaration of Independence thing, fuck that.” Well except for Nazis.
a significant number of the founding fathers were slave owners. Four of our first five Presidents were slave owners. Madison and Monroe don’t get near the grief Jefferson does.
Yes they were and they all deserve shit for it, but not at the expense of their other accomplishments. Presentism is a disease that we should avoid. IMO those guys did a lot more good than they did harm.
And they don’t get nearly as much shit because they aren’t as high profile, at least not compared to Jefferson.
Not even possible for the woke crowd.
Or for you.
utterly inane and bizarre statement.
Sorry it is beyond you. Google can be your friend.
No, no, I understood the post to be inane and bizarre just fine, thanks!
yep, your lack of understanding is lamentable.
Nothing you have ever written to me has been and will never be beyond me.
Said by one who cannot intellectually comprehend my words.
Now it is indeed your understanding which is questionable at best after I just told you I understood your post to be inane and bizarre.
There is no need for you to continue to prove it with subsequent posts.
Wow, quite the edit there!
LOL!!!!
I feel we have veered off from the original topic, and should get back to that (so I don’t get suspended). In other words I cannot continue due to a potential suspension.
When it is warranted.
Are you done or not?
One post you claim you are, then a minute later you start all over again.
Please make up your mind.
or not.
Sent to the wrong person. No [worries Deleted]
No they do not. They were a product of their times and those times found slavery as a perfectly normal and acceptable activity. They can not be judged by today's norms and morals.
There is a rather big flaw in your argument. Many people in America both prior to and post 1776 began to believe slavery was wrong. Jefferson himself knew it was wrong but took part in it anyway.
I would bet that many that are obsessed with racism would’ve been slave owners back in the day if they had the means.
Thats a ridiculous thing to say but I cant say I am surprised.
There were many white Americans that lived during the time of slavery who thought slavery was abominable and chose not to own slaves. There were also many who thought it was horrible but necessary and so participated but tried to treat their slaves as well as they could. And then there were those who fought to protect their supposed right to own humans as cattle and treated them as such.
I believe Jefferson was one of those who thought the institution of slavery was horrible, but likely thought keeping them himself and treating them better than some was a better fate than letting them get sold to those who treated their slaves worse than cattle. He wrote that slaves should be treated "less harshly" than the norm at the time.
Of course, that certainly doesn't make him a saint, but he certainly wasn't a slave holder of the level of the confederates who fought and killed American soldiers so that they could keep them.
I agree with your thought here, but you never know how things will evolve. Not long people chuckled at the idea that anyone would ever try to take down a Thomas Jefferson statue. I wouldn’t rule it out.
Already, “man on the street” interviews reveal that many regular people have no real idea why we celebrate on the 4th of July. Convincing such people to “cancel” the Declaration of Independence will be easy if they don’t appreciate what it is.
Do you think they'll ever get around to erasing all historical evidence that black people in the USA owned indentured servants AND black slaves?
What about the white slave-owners whose modern-day "black" descendants are politicians of mixed races? Hmmm.
What is your point Jasper? Are you the next one who is going to try and argue that slavery in America was not based on race?
Removing the statue is an embarrassment
Our history is a national history. It is beyond stupid to eliminate markers that remind us of our history. A people that erases/forgets it’s history is doomed to repeat it. We don’t need a repeat of a civil war.
Um, ever heard of these things called libraries? Statues are for show, libraries/schools/colleges are for LEARNING. There is a reason you don't see statues of Hitler all over Germany.
There is no legitimate comparison to fellow Americans who fought for the CSA to Hitler. That’s a clear violation of Godwin’s law.
Democrats are the original racists and founders of KKK.
Thomas Jefferson is America’s heritage. It’s your right to hate America, but to equate Jefferson to Robert E Lee is idiotic.
True, and now nearly all their descendants register Republican. The party name matters little, it's the difference between conservative and liberal progressive ideology. Liberals fought to free slaves, conservatives fought to keep them. It's not a mystery as to why the same white Christian conservatives still run the South, only the party names have changed.
The Dixiecrats didn't all just die off or magically disappear, they just switched parties like a leopard trying to change its spots when they realized it was no longer socially acceptable to show your spots publicly. And now they are trying to claim reverse racism which is like a leopard proclaiming they're the endangered species, not the prey they and their ancestors have been living off of for hundreds of years. Trump made spots "cool" again in their right wing conservative leopard social groups. They're claiming that affirmative action to protect and help the antelope and other herbivore's from them is somehow reverse specism that could lead to the extinction of their fellow leopards and "leopard culture".
It really doesn't matter what party label the "original racists" had, it matters who today continues the legacy of those "original racists" by trying desperately to protect their racist culture, memorials and monuments. Only those descendants of the "original racists" would be fighting so hard to pretend there is no systemic racism, no need for a hand up for the descendants of those who were literally hunted down, used and abused and no need to remove the statues that memorialize those who treasonously fought and killed actual American soldiers so they could keep their legacy of racism alive.
We all know which party acts as if systemic racism doesn't exist, scoffs at reparations and affirmative action, protects monuments and memorials to confederate soldiers and generals and continues to whine and complain about diversity and equality, conservative Republicans. And we all know which party today fights for diversity, equity and equality for all regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof, and that would clearly be the liberal progressive Democrats. Trying to pretend anything else is just sad and exposes one as someone desperate to hide their own spots.
They did die off. Do you imagine they are immortal?
They remained good Democrats until they died. Good progressives that they were, some of the die hards (who were still alive) who signed the southern manifesto voted for LBJ's Great Society.
Came across a good story about Senator Byrd (Not the Klansman from West Virginia, but Harry Byrd of Virginia who was just as racist). In the late 60s, there was the thought by some that he might switch parties. They approached the Republican Governor and sounded him out. He reacted with abhorrence, noting they had a great thing going, and bringing over Byrd and his racist segregationists would ruin it. So Byrd remained a power into the 80s and the Republicans continued their decades long growth in Virginia, as the racist Democrats lost power.
Another thing you totally misunderstand. Godwin would detest you. Here's an interesting quote from Godwin:
"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician."
And another when talking about those good boyz at Charlottesville who chanted "you shall not replace us".
"By all means, compare these shitheads to the Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you."
Democrats have told the lie that all the Southern racist Democrats all magically switched parties that many of them have actually started to believe it, despite facts to the contrary.
Meh, let them have their fantasy!
Then let them take down the statues, why would you care?
Please show me where I said that?
When the civil rights act was passed the youngest of those Southern Dixiecrats of voting age would be 75 today. And do you really believe all their descendants just magically discarded their family's heritage and prejudices after their racist parents passed away? That's just fucking insane.
Well that's just complete nonsense, Southern Dixiecrats were not liberal progressives, they were staunch Christian conservatives and everyone knows it. This attempt to hide their spots is hilarious. Just like the meme above, these Southern Republicans proclaim that they're all different from their Southern conservative Dixiecrat roots, but as soon as anyone tries to tear down their confederate flags and confederate monuments they grab their tiki torches, confederate flags and swastikas and demand everyone leave their heritage alone.
Just more bullshit. The conservative Southern Democrats were the ones who voted against the civil rights act and voting rights act that LBJ signed into law. They were and still are right wing Christian conservatives, they haven't changed anything but their party affiliation because Republicans appealed to them for the next 30 years after the civil rights act was passed with a majority of Northern Democrats and signed into law by a Democrat President.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are." - Republican political strategist Kevin Phillips in 1970
And that's exactly what happened. Sure it took till 1992 for Republicans to gain complete control over the South, but to pretend those new Southern Republicans weren't formerly Southern Democrats is just plain stupid.
hts act was passed the youngest of those Southern Dixiecrats of voting age would be 75 today.
Dixiecrats refers to a segregationist party in the mid 1940s.
do you really believe all their descendants just magically discarded their family's heritage and prejudices after their racist parents passed away? That's just fucking insane.
You believe your voting preferences are passed on by blood and are heritable? That's insane. I suppose if you believe the south is just as racist now as it was in 1964 you will believe all sorts of race based nonsense. Open your eyes and deal with reality. Do you think blacks are flooding back to the south from the north because they missed racism?\
Much as it must bother you, it's not 1964 anymore. The world has moved on.
ust more bullshit. T
Of course it's not. Look it up.
ocrats were the ones who voted against the civil rights act and voting rights act that LBJ signed into law
And supported his big government "war on poverty" programs. Progressive politics and racism work well together. Always have.
ure it took till 1992 for Republicans to gain complete control over the South, but to pretend those new Southern Republicans weren't formerly Southern Democrats is just plain stupid
Bill Clinton won 4 southern states in 1992. Remember, "it's the economy, stupid."
What's actaully stupid is pretending voting populations don't change over decades and ignoring voting data. That the south is as racist now as it was in 1964. That people don't die. That biology controls voting. That people ignore the economy, war, etc and only vote the way they do because of a bill in 1964.
I hate to break it to you, but few Americans are as racially obsessed as you are. Something as simple as gas prices are much more relevant to how people vote than your projected racial obsessions. "It's the economy, stupid" is a lesson that still needs to be learned today, apparently.
A great reply!
Once again New York embarrasses America before the whole world.
Not at all.
Yet putting up a statue of a career criminal like george floyd is fine? The left is so backwards.
This is from a magazine article about the Dred Scott decision
This is quite interesting. Roger Taney, the chief justice of the Supreme Court at the time of Dred Scott maintained, in the decision, that Jefferson could not have meant that ALL men are created equal , because if he did he would have shown himself and the other founders to be hypocrites.
So, if you will, it was enshrined in a Supreme Court decision that all men are NOT created equal AND the DOI could not have been interpreted to read that way.
It’s not Jefferson’s fault that some others who came along later could not live up to the aspirations of the DOI.
as to your link, it’s wrong. Roe vs Wade now has that distinction.
In 1858, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court wrote that either blacks were not meant to be included in "all men are created equal" or the founding fathers were hypocrites. Which do you prefer?
So now you accept Roger Taney as an infallible authority?
lol. In his decision on Dred Scott Taney chose one of his two alternatives for Jefferson, the one that did the most damage to black aspirations.
Whether Taney was evil himself doesnt change the alternatives.
Yes, Taney was evil. When you're bored, just look at the SCOTUS decisions regarding the Nations/Tribes - they lost every damn one of them 'cause he thought them to be so very inferior that they didn't even deserve opportunities for the courts to hear their cases.
William S. Rogers was accused of murder but he claimed U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over citizens of the Cherokee nation. In his decision upholding the prosecution of Rogers (delivered several months after Rogers had died attempting to escape from incarceration in Arkansas) Chief Justice Taney had declared that "native tribes... have never been acknowledged or treated as independent nations by the European governments, nor regarded as the owners of the territories they respectively occupied."' He added that the United States had consistently followed this approach: [F]rom the very moment the general government came into existence to this time, it has exercised its power over this unfortunate race in the spirit of humanity and justice, and has endeavored by every means in its power to enlighten their minds and increase their comforts, and to save them if possible from the consequences of their own vices .
decision on Dred Scott Taney chose one of his two alternatives for Jefferson, the one that did the most damage to black aspirations.
Taney chose a rhetorical device that helped him justify his favored outcome. The opinion is exceptionally dishonest, and premised on the demonstrably false claim that blacks were not considered citizens in any states at the time the Constitution was ratified.
The then Chief Justice was wrong.
Well, Thomas Jefferson was a Classic Liberal, (all the founders were) in todays liberal world, that is tantamount to being the same as Adolph Hitler...
In the long history of civilizations only recently have there not been slaves.
Oh come on! The United States of America is uniquely guilty above all nations of all time on this issue. No other nation need bear any guilt or responsibility for it in in their history. Only the USA holds the collective guilt for the institution and was founded solely to protect and advance this global institution, and is irredeemable without total transformation. After all 1619 and CRT propaganda say it is so.
“I want to tell you how welcome you are to the White House. I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” ... Kennedy, John F. April 29th, 1962 State Dining Room, Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Prize Winners of the Western Hemisphere.
Can't say it any better than that...
We were lucky as a nation that Thomas Jefferson was a part of our founding.