Thomas Jefferson emblem of white supremacy

[Vlad]

So says a group of WVA college students who demanded not that his statue be removed but to display a plaque re-contextualizing that history.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/23/thomas-jefferson-emblem-of-white-supremacy-targete/

Nice to see some civility for a change demonstrated by leftists...they made the decision to destroy the statue later should their demand not be met.

[*jason*]

(08-25-2017, 10:45 AM)Vlad Wrote: So says a group of WVA college students who demanded not that his statue be removed but to display a plaque re-contextualizing that history.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/23/thomas-jefferson-emblem-of-white-supremacy-targete/

Nice to see some civility for a change demonstrated by leftists...they made the decision to destroy the statue later should their demand not be met.

Isn't Thomas Jefferson known for his late night forays to the female slave quarters? White supremacist my ass.

[Vlad]

(08-25-2017, 10:50 AM)jason Wrote: Isn't Thomas Jefferson known for his late night forays to the female slave quarters? White supremacist my ass.

Exactly. Has nothing to do with white supremacy.

[Au165]

Didn't he literally write "All men are created equal"? Am I missing the correlation to white supremacy somewhere?

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2017, 10:57 AM)Au165 Wrote: Didn't he literally write "All men are created equal"? Am I missing the correlation to white supremacy somewhere?

At the time, slaves were not considered to be men. They were chattel in this country.

Edit to add: Jefferson did see black people as inferior to white people. He said as much in his book Notes on the State of Virginia. He even laid out in some detail why he saw whites as superior. This wasn't uncommon in the day and for a century after, even among abolitionists. There were many people that wanted an end to slavery as they saw it as unjust and immoral, but they still believed the black race to be inferior (and some didn't want them around once they were freed).

[Au165]

(08-25-2017, 10:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: At the time, slaves were not considered to be men. They were chattel in this country.

Edit to add: Jefferson did see black people as inferior to white people. He said as much in his book Notes on the State of Virginia. He even laid out in some detail why he saw whites as superior. This wasn't uncommon in the day and for a century after, even among abolitionists. There were many people that wanted an end to slavery as they saw it as unjust and immoral, but they still believed the black race to be inferior (and some didn't want them around once they were freed).

My understanding of the phrase as written by Jefferson was it did include them, however various versions were modified in southern states to say all free men. Maybe he did mean that, but it is curious that the southern states threw a fit about it if the large assumption was that it did not include slaves.

Edit to edit: Historian John Chester Miller laid out that Jefferson did actually seek to end the slave trade with the statement. It is kind of a weird dynamic to own slaves, but to also want to eliminate it. Kind of an "I'll eliminate it but I want everyone else to otherwise I am staying with the norm" idea. While he may have felt white people were better it does not mean he can't think they were equal in requirement of certain rights. Many people feel that rich are better than poor, but those same people wouldn't say the poor don't deserve certain rights. It really is a complex, but interesting subject.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2017, 11:02 AM)Au165 Wrote: My understanding of the phrase as written by Jefferson was it did include them, however various versions were modified in southern states to say all free men. Maybe he did mean that, but it is curious that the southern states threw a fit about it if the large assumption was that it did not include slaves.

Edit to edit: Historian John Chester Miller laid out that Jefferson did actually seek to end the slave trade with the statement. It is kind of a weird dynamic to own slaves, but to also want to eliminate it. Kind of an "I'll eliminate it but I want everyone else to otherwise I am staying with the norm" idea. While he may have felt white people were better it does not mean he can't think they were equal in requirement of certain rights. Many people feel that rich are better than poor, but those same people wouldn't say the poor don't deserve certain rights. It really is a complex, but interesting subject.

Because of the southern states, the founding fathers definitely deferred the issue of slavery to future generations. Jefferson's own history on the subject is very uneven. He introduced legislation in Virginia to abolish the practice, but didn't push hard for it at the national level. I think he firmly believed it needed to be left up to each state to handle the issue in their own time and at their own pace. Another reason he didn't push much for it in later years was because he was seriously in debt. His slaves and Monticello were his only real assets, and an end to slavery would have left him destitute.

Regardless of all of that, I don't think it can be denied that there was an undercurrent of racism that existed within Jefferson. As I said, many people at the time, and in the years after, saw slavery as immoral and many even felt that they were entitled to equal rights under the law. That definitely doesn't mean they didn't have the same racist views, because many did when you examine their writings. R.E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, the men whose statues really stirred up this latest round of dialogue, could have the same said about them. Both were slave owners, both saw it as immoral, both saw it as something Virginia needed to come to terms with on its own, and both saw black people as inferior to white people. They were just on the losing side of history and so more people are more inclined to tear down their monuments than others.

[Au165]

(08-25-2017, 11:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because of the southern states, the founding fathers definitely deferred the issue of slavery to future generations. Jefferson's own history on the subject is very uneven. He introduced legislation in Virginia to abolish the practice, but didn't push hard for it at the national level. I think he firmly believed it needed to be left up to each state to handle the issue in their own time and at their own pace. Another reason he didn't push much for it in later years was because he was seriously in debt. His slaves and Monticello were his only real assets, and an end to slavery would have left him destitute.

Regardless of all of that, I don't think it can be denied that there was an undercurrent of racism that existed within Jefferson. As I said, many people at the time, and in the years after, saw slavery as immoral and many even felt that they were entitled to equal rights under the law. That definitely doesn't mean they didn't have the same racist views, because many did when you examine their writings. R.E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, the men whose statues really stirred up this latest round of dialogue, could have the same said about them. Both were slave owners, both saw it as immoral, both saw it as something Virginia needed to come to terms with on its own, and both saw black people as inferior to white people. They were just on the losing side of history and so more people are more inclined to tear down their monuments than others.

Yea, I think to say he is a symbol of white supremacy is basically to say the whole era is. I think you have to look at historical figures with respect to the time period they lived in. We kind of already condemn the time period for what it was, but you literally would have to tear every statue down if we start going this route.

Interesting to note Robert E Lee was all for unification post war and didn't want statues of himself, or other confederate symbols, made knowing they could be used as symbols for separatists to rally behind. In 1856 he actually called slavery evil, but also still maintained slaves himself. Another kind of weird paradox of the time.

[Vlad]

(08-25-2017, 10:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: At the time, slaves were not considered to be men. They were chattel in this country.

Edit to add: Jefferson did see black people as inferior to white people. He said as much in his book Notes on the State of Virginia. He even laid out in some detail why he saw whites as superior. This wasn't uncommon in the day and for a century after, even among abolitionists. There were many people that wanted an end to slavery as they saw it as unjust and immoral, but they still believed the black race to be inferior (and some didn't want them around once they were freed).

You are correct. Blacks being inferior was a "fact of life" or norm in those days, a belief accepted even by those who tried help blacks succeed. Not only here but cultures around the world held and still hold the same view.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-25-2017, 11:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: Interesting to note Robert E Lee was all for unification post war and didn't want statues of himself, or other confederate symbols, made knowing they could be used as symbols for separatists to rally behind. In 1856 he actually called slavery evil, but also still maintained slaves himself. Another kind of weird paradox of the time.

One of my more conservative friends on Facebook posted a story suggesting that Robert E. Lee was actually in favor of freeing the slaves and stuff but that he felt it was his honor to fight for his home state or some such hogwash. I was like, you can't say you were against slavery yet lead the fight for the side that wants to keep it. What, was R.E. Lee channeling his inner John Kerry or something? 

[Au165]

(08-25-2017, 11:35 AM)PhilHos Wrote: One of my more conservative friends on Facebook posted a story suggesting that Robert E. Lee was actually in favor of freeing the slaves and stuff but that he felt it was his honor to fight for his home state or some such hogwash. I was like, you can't say you were against slavery yet lead the fight for the side that wants to keep it. What, was R.E. Lee channeling his inner John Kerry or something? 

It was kind of common for the time period actually, but Lee made statements on both sides of the argument so he was hard to figure out. It wasn't until after the war he said he was against it, but he made opposing statements in a similar time period though so who knows. Plenty of people of the period who had slaves would probably have been best classified as owning them, but being okay if everyone agreed to end it. Few wanted to give it up and be the only ones to suffer, but the idea of everyone doing it together seemed to be where some people could find common ground.

Like I said kind of a weird period.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2017, 11:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, I think to say he is a symbol of white supremacy is basically to say the whole era is. I think you have to look at historical figures with respect to the time period they lived in. We kind of already condemn the time period for what it was, but you literally would have to tear every statue down if we start going this route.

Honestly, his writing in the book could really be used by white supremacists, and some of his policies while an elected official were pretty atrocious, as well. I don't agree with tearing his statues down, but I have no objections to context being provided. I'm not one that is much for idolizing people in general because they all have their flaws, and I think by making sure we say "here is this statue of someone that is important in our history. They did this, this, and this; however, as they also did this and here is the historical context" is not a terrible thing and allows us to look at these figures as men, not as people that are larger than life.

We often treat our history and our founding fathers as if they were demigods, but they were men. Their arguments were just as heated, their opinions just as divided, their personal lives just as racy. We like to pretend they were handed the keys to the kingdom in the form of the Constitution as if it was passed down like the tablets to Moses or the Qu'ran to Mohammed, but they were politicians that crafted the policy. It is imperfect, and so were they.

/rant

(08-25-2017, 11:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: Interesting to note Robert E Lee was all for unification post war and didn't want statues of himself made knowing they could be used as symbols for separatists to rally behind. In 1856 he actually called slavery evil, but also still maintained slaves himself. Another kind of weird paradox of the time.

Jackson actually had an illegal school for black children that he ran in Lexington, meanwhile owning a couple of house slaves and speaking out against slavery as well.

Personally, I would love to see statues of Lee survive as a committed educator (he spent more time as a college president between West Point and Washington College than he did as a Confederate general) and unifying force in the Reconstruction era. But that's not what people want. They want him in his uniform atop a horse, not in a suit behind a desk or podium.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-25-2017, 11:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: their personal lives just as racy.

[Millhouse]

(08-25-2017, 10:50 AM)jason Wrote: Isn't Thomas Jefferson known for his late night forays to the female slave quarters? White supremacist my ass.

Jefferson's family portrait day..

[Millhouse]

(08-25-2017, 11:35 AM)PhilHos Wrote: One of my more conservative friends on Facebook posted a story suggesting that Robert E. Lee was actually in favor of freeing the slaves and stuff but that he felt it was his honor to fight for his home state or some such hogwash. I was like, you can't say you were against slavery yet lead the fight for the side that wants to keep it. What, was R.E. Lee channeling his inner John Kerry or something? 

Fighting for Virginia, or as Lee would have it called it his country, was most important to him. If Virginia would have freed the slaves and then joined the Union instead, he would have led all the Union armies on the outset of the war to come. But his loyalties were to Virginia first and foremost, that can't be argued. So that part is correct.

I think though when I see things on Facebook and otherwise on the other part of Lee being in favor of freeing the slaves, it is an attempt to rewrite history so to speak to make him seem more noble and acceptable to today's world. Which is no different than the reason why so many of these Confederate monuments were put up in the 1900s, which was the South's attempt to rewrite a history of 4 years of treason to protect slavery, by saying it was a 'war between the states' and these figures should be glorified, all the while conveniently glossing over slavery.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2017, 12:21 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Fighting for Virginia, or as Lee would have it called it his country, was most important to him. If Virginia would have freed the slaves and then joined the Union instead, he would have led all the Union armies on the outset of the war to come. But his loyalties were to Virginia first and foremost, that can't be argued. So that part is correct.

I think though when I see things on Facebook and otherwise on the other part of Lee being in favor of freeing the slaves, it is an attempt to rewrite history so to speak to make him seem more noble and acceptable to today's world. Which is no different than the reason why so many of these Confederate monuments were put up in the 1900s, which was the South's attempt to rewrite a history of 4 years of treason to protect slavery, by saying it was a 'war between the states' and these figures should be glorified, all the while conveniently glossing over slavery.

Lee and others felt Virginia needed to make up its own mind on slavery, not let the federal government decide it for them. This is why the whole "states' rights" argument happens, though it is often ignored that they are talking about slavery being the issue the states wanted the right to decide. A lot of the people at the time felt slavery was immoral, but feared economic collapse if it were abolished.

[Millhouse]

(08-25-2017, 12:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Lee and others felt Virginia needed to make up its own mind on slavery, not let the federal government decide it for them. This is why the whole "states' rights" argument happens, though it is often ignored that they are talking about slavery being the issue the states wanted the right to decide. A lot of the people at the time felt slavery was immoral, but feared economic collapse if it were abolished.

Well even more so, the southern aristocracy was making a fortune off of slave labor on the huge plantations. And it was this aristocracy that led the south into secession and into war itself. Like anything in this world, it can all go back to money $$$, and the preservation of making that money. But only for the wealthy 'nobles' of the South. Most southerners didnt own slaves nor have a say in the politics as you and others that know this history know about. They just went along with the fever that overtook the South to secede, and fight for their state's honor. A typical answer from a southern soldier when asked by a northern one 'why are u fighting this war', the answer would have been 'because you are down here'.