Well it was important enough that the southern states didn’t agree to it.
I didn't suggest it was unimportant. I said you misstated what it purported to do. You claimed that his draft (would have) abolished slavery. It would have done no such thing. He wouldn't have claimed the Continental Congress even had the authority to do such a thing. He did condemn slavery and George's role in the slave trade. I wish his words had made the final draft.
The Jefferson/Hemmings “relationship” is a historical nothingburger. It’s part of the leftist objective of diminishing important people and their accomplishments. .
They were humans, not gods, not infallible. There is nothing wrong with showing them as human.
Jefferson wanted to be an abolitionist and freed a few of his 600 slaves. A good question, is a person that frees 10 of 600 really an abolitionist?
I think the “warts and all” approach to US history for the reasons I said is crap. The warts are nothingbergers. When almost all southern ag owners, and many in the north, owned slaves, the fact that some founders also owned some is irrelevant to our history. So yeah, if I were to teach history, I’d teach about the Missouri compromise, Dredd, Scott, Andrew Jackson, and Calhoon. That is much more instructive about the issue.
Of course the contental congress had no authority to abolish slavery, we weren’t even a country let alone one with a central government. But if there is a stronger message about the evil of slavery without actual abolition, I don’t know what it would be.
Of course there is nothing wrong with it. But it’s an anecdote, not significant history.
Of course the contental congress had no authority to abolish slavery, we weren’t even a country let alone one with a central government. But if there is a stronger message about the evil of slavery without actual abolition, I don’t know what it would be.
That's fine, but then your entire attempt to try to disagree with me was meaningless.
You know, it's possible to say, "Hey, I misspoke and overreached a bit. My bad." That club is in your bag.
Of course there is nothing wrong with it. But it’s an anecdote, not significant history.
Back in my day I learned Washington cut down a cherry tree, threw a silver dollar across the Potomac, and Lincoln walked several miles to return 6 cents to a customer he accidentally overcharged. The first two are absolutely myths, the third has be known evidence. Yet school teachers taught them
Yes. But in 1776 he could sue her. - Governor Lepetomane
Okay. I suggested Jefferson proposed abolishing slavery in the declaration, that couldn’t happen. But he came damn close. My salient point is about Brad’s kid’s teacher suggestion of Jefferson’s hypocrisy, and your hinting at reinforcing it with your first post in this thread.
Okay. I suggested Jefferson proposed abolishing slavery in the declaration, that couldn’t happen. But he came damn close. My salient point is about Brad’s kid’s teacher suggestion of Jefferson’s hypocrisy, and your hinting at reinforcing it with your first post in this thread.
Again, you either didn't read or didn't understand my post.
Glad to see we got the totally irrelevant MLK yabbuts inserted into this thread. Can't tell the players without a scorecard.
.
Homeschool your kids.
Make sure you cover Bitcoin early.
https://twitter.com/GhostOfBekka/status/1850608640753111159
Im not sure what a “nothing burger” is, but I don’t think this qualifies.The Jefferson/Hemmings “relationship” is a historical nothingburger. It’s part of the leftist objective of diminishing important people and their accomplishments. .
Im not sure what a “nothing burger” is, but I don’t think this qualifies.The Jefferson/Hemmings “relationship” is a historical nothingburger. It’s part of the leftist objective of diminishing important people and their accomplishments. .
It's how COH dismisses anything he can't refute.
Im guessing he’ll learn all that too. It’s AP US History.I think the “warts and all” approach to US history for the reasons I said is crap. The warts are nothingbergers. When almost all southern ag owners, and many in the north, owned slaves, the fact that some founders also owned some is irrelevant to our history. So yeah, if I were to teach history, I’d teach about the Missouri compromise, Dredd, Scott, Andrew Jackson, and Calhoon. That is much more instructive about the issue.
I’d argue an inability to recognize the importance of the Founders’ hypocrisy on slavery and race makes it difficult for one to understand a very important part of US history and why race still, to this day, is so important to our politics.
Jefferson’s particular hypocrisy didn’t end at slavery—his stated desire for a very limited federal government and powers evaporated when he became Prez.
For me, though, I’m not sure what good it does to assume the moral value conclusion of rape (very strong word with connotations of violence) in 1770s based on 21st century norms. There is evidence that Hemings “consented” in a non-trivial way within her circumstances. I think it’s a very thorny issue.