Thomas Jefferson was, it seems to me, just an A-Grade hypocrite and liar; a man who made a lot of filthy lucre for himself and his cronies through protecting the slave trade in the US over many years — Dachshund

It's hard to defend someone who owned 200 slaves, as he himself admitted that slavery corrupted all men. Jefferson did inherit 52 slaves by his father's will and another 135 slaves from his father-in-law's will. He did however face constant debt problems and in his death 130 slaves were sold to pay those debts. In some sense the banks were the ones who owned the slaves; this made it very difficult for him to free the slaves on his own volition.

Despite this, he did free some of his slaves, some of which only after they had been trained and were qualified to hold employment. Jefferson seemed to believe that the outright freeing of slaves would be dangerous for everyone, and that training and gradual integration was the correct course of action. Jefferson proposed a national plan to end slavery by the federal government via purchasing African-American slave children for $12.50, raising and training them in occupations of freemen

The hypocrisy of Jefferson signing the declaration of independence, while still owning slaves, was not lost on people even then though. "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." It was a time of transition, with cumbersome legacy baggage to account for, but a solid foundation for the future was still being laid at least.

In the end, Jefferson led the effort to criminalize the international slave trade, which ultimately can be considered a good thing. He was one of the good guys in my opinion, despite his blemishes.

As per the topic of equality, he did seem to believe that Africans had a lower intelligence, so I don't think he really thought that people were born equal, in a physical sense anyways. Based on my interpretation, he believed all men should be equal under the law and equally free of slavery at birth, and as such should be afforded equal rights, specific to the right of self-defense, property ownership, and the pursuit of happiness.

Regardless, the notion that people are born with equal ability, equal opportunity, equal Independence, or equal value seems to me to be pretty ludicrous. I suppose the growth of the government into aspects of society outside of simply ensuring the basic rights previously detailed has carried with it the belief that equality should be found elsewhere as well; and enforced. There is no shortage of novels written about such dystopic worlds where these attitudes run into the extreme.

That's not to say the declaration of independence was perfect though. Women's rights were not equal those of males, and the more modern argument is that they should be. There is an argument that perhaps they shouldn't be though, as under the law a man going topless and a women going topless have different perceptions. We also have male circumcision and female circumcision differences. Clearly, men and women are born different, and even under the law, they have different rights and freedoms. It becomes a slippery slope to play that game though.

In reviewing the initial post and the comments following it, it looks like most people have raised good points here. The statement first off was poorly written, because when we say one thing is equal to another, we typically indicate in what way the two objects are equal. Equally tall, equal mass. Equally salty. Yet, Jefferson never stated how all men are equal. Presumably he meant political equality, but that was hard to swallow when blacks were enslaved, and only wealthy white men could vote, and even the rich white men could not vote directly for president, but only for the electoral college, who would then go on and elect the president. Bloody rubbish for sure, but, I like those words, because they have been used by every minority group in the USA as the basis to be treated equally.

this made it very difficult for him to free the slaves on his own volition. — Sydasis

Boo Hoo.

As per the topic of equality, he did seem to believe that Africans had a lower intelligence, so I don't think he really thought that people were born equal, in a physical sense anyways. Based on my interpretation, he believed all men should be equal under the law and equally free of slavery at birth, and as such should be afforded equal rights, specific to the right of self-defense, property ownership, and the pursuit of happiness. — Sydasis

Hi Sydasis,

It is not so much Thomas Jefferson, I am criticising, but the egalitarian notion that we all hold it to be an" inalienable", and"self -evident" fact that"all men are created equal". IMO, Jefferson probably included this idea in his preamble to the American Declaration of Independence (1776) after befriending and reading the work of Tom Paine, a rabble-rousing, political firebrand and full-blooded English egalitarian socialist, who arrived in the colonies around the mid (I think)- 1770s an went on to play a major, if not critical role, in the helping the Americans to win the Revolutionary war against the British Crown (1775- 83).

I made the point, in a post above, that the phrase "all men are created equal" is an endorsement,( in my view), of the ethical doctrine of moral egalitarianism; that is, it is an affirmation of the ""irrefragable", "unquestionable" fact (?) of the MORAL EQUALITY of all human beings.

But - (pardon me if I am putting it too bluntly) - I smell a rat...


When we proclaim the MORAL EQUALITY of all human beings, what we are actually stating, I say, is a belief that ANY INTEREST of any one man or woman that is comparable in MAGNITUDE and QUALITY to the interest of any other man or woman SHOULD COUNT THE SAME in determining what actions and policies we adopt. BTW, it is very important for me to clarify I what I mean by the term "INTEREST", and what I mean, precisely, is this; one has an INTEREST in something, if attaining the something would be conducive to one's GOOD or WELFARE.

The big problem I have with the claim that "all men are created equal" is that it only makes sense - it is only INTELLIGIBLE - if, as I say, we take to be a MORAL PRESCRIPTION that holds there is at least SOME RESPECT in which no difference OUGHT to be made to the treatment or consideration of ALL MEN and WOMEN (all human beings) REGARDLESS of whatever obvious differences there might be in their qualities or circumstances.

As I said above,if there is some such respect which actually exists and which means we MUST therefore treat the interest of any one man or woman (when it is of comparable MAGNITUDE or QUALITY) to the interest of any other man or woman and regardless of whatever self-evident differences their might be in their qualities ( age, skin colour, height, race/ethnicity, intelligence, gender, occupation, personality traits, etc) or circumstances (e.g. being the current Queen of England or President of the United States or being , say, indigent and homeless with no fixed address), then what is it ??

WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IT ( the mysterious RESPECT I refer to above) IS, BECAUSE I HAVE THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT IT AND I CANNOT SEEM TO FIND ONE - ANYWHERE, EITHER IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE ,OR, IN ANY BOOK OF WISDOM OR SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY I HAVE READ OR BEEN TAUGHT !! It is all the more frustrating because of the pressing urgency of this entire matter - there is, I mean, naturally a tremendous amount at stake for humanity in finding -if it exists - a real, concrete, no-nonsense answer this question.

That is why I published the original OP, not so much to indict Jefferson (whom most people know was an arrogant, wealthy capitalist and certainly "no Angel" in terms of his general behaviour), but to challenge EVERYTHING the "Great American Creed" ( "We hold these truths to be self-evident... etc") stands for. Is it all, I am wondering, all just a piece of high falutin', self-righteous, woolley, abstract nonsense ?

What do you think ?

Regards

Dachshund

As I said above,if there is some such respect which actually exists and which means we MUST therefore treat the interest of any one man or woman — Dachshund

I suppose that's up to you. If you want to deny rights to others then you have no leg to stand on when others deny rights to you. This would also entail you binding over for the Queen, and I understand that Donald also likes to give it out too.

Dear Mr Crank — Dachshund

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I suppose that's up to you. If you want to deny rights to others then you have no leg to stand on when others deny rights to you. — charleton

People denying each other's so-called fundamental human sright ? Ha, you must be joking. It happens all the time, 24/7/365 day a year, everywhere on planet Earth there are people, buddy ! - It's an innate attribute of human BEING ( i.e. our human"being" in itself, in its ontological context) It's an intrinsic part of what we call the "human condition". (and the human condition is notorious for not always being a pleasant stroll through a rose garden young man ! (Quite the F**KING opposite , in fact).

To put it bluntly, Charleton, S**T HAPPENS in this life, and the sad fact is that not uncommonly, S**T that happens to precious, little YOU ,is a direct consequence of other human beings nearby NOT respecting the romantic utopist, "cloud cuckoo land" notion of universal, moral equality.

:grin: - Couldn't resist the temptation !! ( wicked, I know).

It happens all the time — Dachshund

Indeed, when we have dinosaurs like you. Shit does happen and that is exactly why Trumpers like yourself need to be fought against

Boo Hoo. — charleton

I don't quite follow.

Pardon the pedantic nature of this reply, but I'm struggling to offer answers to your questions.

It is not so much Thomas Jefferson, I am criticising, but the egalitarian notion that we all hold it to be an" inalienable", and"self -evident" fact that"all men are created equal" — Dachshund

Not an argument really, but I'm Canadian and as such I learned about American history on my own accord. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedom, which does not use those terms you mention, yet the end result for us has been equal or even more extreme. I suppose then it's not the wording or phrasing that matters so much as the general sentiment.

As per the Canadian charter, "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination... [affirmative action programs however can trump these rights]".

Relevant is the Canadian Federal Budget released yesterday, $1.4-billion has been allocated towards female entrepreneurs, along with the introduction of a federal mandate of equal pay for females; whatever that may entail needs to be seen.

the work of Tom Paine, a rabble-rousing, political firebrand and full-blooded English egalitarian socialist — Dachshund

Reading over Paine's history in more detail, I find it interesting how he sees "created equal" as not an anti-slavery argument, but as an anti-monarchy one. I believe there might of been reference to Jesus in his argument, so take that for what it is worth.

Furthermore, for Paine, the terms "inalienable" and "self-evident" seemed to imply that human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter. If granted by means of political charter, that would imply those rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges. This also would seemingly imply that these rights are not to be questioned and are not up for debate. I have read though that in later years Jefferson himself spoke of these rights as not just political, but morally as well, but times do change people.

Based on the works of Locke, which also seem to carry significance to this discussion, he asserted that human natural rights would mean nothing without a moral human code to define them. I can't particularly fault him for such belief, although I am generally of the mindset that natural morals are primarily allowances in behavior that ensures reproduction and survival.

The deviation of any moral code and moral equity by the founding fathers would seem however to come directly from the Christian bible's declaration of such truths. If there be a separation of state and church, it seems a bit of a fallacy to base the premise of any rights on the incontestable assertions of any one's religion's morals. I suspect that to "respect" a person is to not infringe on those rights claimed to be natural. Either way, the words picked do imply that regardless of derivation, the stated rights are not to be questioned. This is fairly normal of most charters though, no?

I'm struggling to tackle your other deeper arguments however, as I find myself needing to make a lot of debatable conclusions as to what the basis of "all men are created equal" means. Juggling these assumptions is overwhelming me.

If he had given a fuck about slaves he could have lived without them. He could have freed them, paid them.

Inalienable rights do come from Locke, who simply based his claim on magic --- or, excuse me, a belief in God. Inalienable rights are typically misunderstood. They literally mean you are stuck with them. So, Locke would have been against someone being relieved from their misery facing a terminal illness by assisted suicide, because he felt the right to life was inalienable, meaning, something a person could not reject.

Well, by today's viewpoint Jefferson would most definitely be a tyrant; I can't deny that he did some disturbing things. I suspect he had the capabilities to free his own slaves too, even if it meant sneaking them out to Canada, although it would of been to his detriment.

A mix of reasons I've found online, although most are just outright bad.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/property

• the economic value of his human property (at certain times, his slaves were mortgaged and thus could not be freed or sold);
• his lifelong view that emancipation had to go hand-in-hand with expatriation of the freed slaves;
• his paternalistic belief that slaves were incapable of supporting themselves in freedom and his fear they would become burden to society;
• his belief in gradual measures operating through the legal processes of government;
• and, after 1806, a state law that required freed slaves to leave Virginia within a year. Jefferson wrote that this law did not "permit" Virginians to free their slaves; he apparently thought that, for an enslaved African American, slavery was preferable to freedom far from one's home and family.

Today, we live in a society were a lifetime of good deeds mean nothing if the #metoo movement accuses you of past sexual misconduct. We also have wealthy elites proclaiming wealth redistribution, although they themselves are not willing to contribute from their wealth alone. It's not even limited to the elites, as there are hundreds of countries worse off than America, and yet wallets largely stay closed. I've adopted my cat, although I do feel guilty that I have room to adopt a few more, and yet I don't.

So my argument is that Jefferson did "give a fuck", although how far he was willing to self-sacrifice can easily be held to scrutiny. Given the context of the time, he was a progressive!

Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Regarding payment to slaves, he was heading in the direction of modern McDonalds I suppose,

Jefferson attempted to motivate slaves to perform tasks with incentives such as “gratuities” (tips) or other rewards. He experimented with “new modes of governance” of enslaved people, which was intended to moderate physical punishment and to capitalize on the human desire to emulate and excel.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

I also found this a bit interesting, although a bit off topic:

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Based on his view of the Haitian Revolution and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, he believed freeing of the slaves outright would result in a race-war, but he also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war that would destroy the union.

This fear was at least partially not unfounded, as the civil war proved, and we see race battles persist in America today and in countries like South Africa.