Clear me up on Jefferson: Is he really the guy we want to compare Ron to?

[acptulsa]

So, we throw out all that was good and wise about Jefferson because he was a product of a barbaric time, and the Constitution out for the same reason. Hell of a deal. But once we do, what becomes of his wisdom? Gets thrown out with him?

Yes, he owned slaves and that makes it hard to take him seriously as a proponent of liberty. Yet he was just that. At a time when everyone was considered 'beholden to the crown', which is pretty much slavery as we think of it today, he was instrumental in making some masters of their own destiny. Not all but some. What right do we have to sit in the luxury of benefiting from his efforts and criticize him for not pulling that trick off for everyone? Tell me that, butchie.

All of this is just another way to use political correctness to stifle speech so we don't look at how far we've backslid in the last two hundred years from the good principles we were crawling toward. Nothing more.

 

[Muwahid]

Umm, I resemble this thread.

TJ was not perfect, no one is.

I know this is "spin", but for the most part the slaves owned by the Founders were treated better and fared much better in life than their counterparts in "free" Africa.

I am a proud white Honkey but I lived in Africa for more than 2 years. The American descendants of slaves today live their lives light years beyond their cousins in Africa today. Just ask a dirt farmer in Zimbabwe. And you can't even ask the millions of Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda - they've been brutally slaughtered and butchered. Black-on-black tribalism is far more deadly than racism or even slavery. JMHO

Seriously? I rather be free, and impoverished, than a slave who eats well at the hands of my master.

 

[tremendoustie]

I like alot about Jefferson and definitely his opposition to banks is an obvious similarity to Ron, but the guy was a vicious defender of slavery, also in his second term as President he put a trade embargo on the British which sunk the economy, so I don't know, was he a good President or a bad one?

Great writer, bad president.

Not that any of them are really good, but when Paul was asked who his favorite president was he said Grover Cleveland.

 

[Bonnieblue]

Granted, I'm no historian but Jefferson originally put some anti-slavery lingo into the first edition of the Dec of Ind which was subsequently taken out to bolster southern colony support. He also freed his slaves upon his death if I'm not mistaken. My main issue with him was buying the LA purchase from France because it really wasn't Constitutional but destiny would have this land mass inevitably belonging to the US.

I am sure that you know that Jefferson himself debated the constitutionality of the purchase. He made the purchase for three reasons of fundamental understanding: he knew that as the population of the union of constitutionally federated republics grew, the land to population ratio would not sustain a republican society in overpopulated states; he was an agrarian and he wanted to sustain that way of life, knowing that old land wore out and that new land was needed; he knew that for slavery to peaceably end, it had to be diffused over a wide geographic area so that enough land would be available for eventually freed slaves. All of Jefferson's understandings could be seen in the Northwest Territory which were antecedent to his becoming President and being confronted with the dilemma to purchase or not to purchase Louisiana. His friend, John Randolph, more Jeffersonian than Jefferson, debated that Virginia should ceded its territory which now constitutes most of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois for Jefferson's three reasons. Randolph said that such a territory could not be governed as a republic but only as an empire; the rejected the notion of empire. He said that the heartland of Virginia would overpopulate and would need the new territory. He wanted the new territory to be slave free so that freed slaves would have a place to go, i.e. the freed population would be diffused. In microcosm, the Northwest Territory, ceded primarily by Virginia was to be what Jefferson foresaw for the entire country. Jefferson spoke of "an empire for liberty." It would be made up of at least five distinct unions of constitutionally federated republics. There common ground would be the traditions, customs and habits inherited from their British ancestors, primarily Saxons and Scotch-Irish. Each of these unions would have its own constitution and its own general government. This was the Jeffersonian ideal. Ideals fail because men are all fallen and not just Jefferson.

 

[RileyE104]

My favorite founder is Thomas Paine and I also like Samuel Jackson and Patrick Henry.

If I'm correct, none of them owned slaves and were vehemently opposed to the institution.

 

[bobburn]

Disliking Jefferson for having slaves is like saying the American revolution was pointless because it allowed slavery to continue. The fact of the matter is, slavery was an accepted institution of life at the time. There was no way to keep the union of the states and outlaw slavery at the time. Read the book "Empire of Liberty" for a good understanding of Jefferson's ultimate goals regarding liberty, free markets, and democracy. The Embargo against the British was due to their war-like acts including impressment (kidnapping American sailors and forcing them into the British navy) and piracy (British hired pirates to rob American, French, and other boats to allow them to continue their vast sea-based empire).

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I can't believe so many people repeating the propaganda lies on this thread! Saying this about the Founding Fathers is nothing more than a tactic in assailing the Constitution.

Slavery existed at that time, as did other variations of labor exploitation, such as indentured servitude. Jefferson was opposed to slavery, but just like today, the President can't do everything they want. Competing agendas always exist, and some are powerful. Why do we have a war on drugs when we all know how counter productive and wasteful that is? Either Obama likes the war on drugs and discriminatory enforcement of the law, or he can't do anything about it.

Jefferson on slavery:

1774 July. (A Summary View of the Rights of British America). "The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state.

1776 before June 13. (Draft of Virginia Constitution). "No person hereafter coming into this country shall be held within the same in slavery under any pretext whatever.

1776 June. (Draft of Declaration of Independence). "He [George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piractical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against lives of another."

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-slavery-and-emancipation

 

[Brian4Liberty]

We're all slaves nowadays...

Pretty much. No matter the name or the specifics, the elite always strive to "enslave" the masses. Cheap labor is the name of the game. Traditional slavery would be cost prohibitive in today's world.

 

[No Free Beer]

Granted, I'm no historian but Jefferson originally put some anti-slavery lingo into the first edition of the Dec of Ind which was subsequently taken out to bolster southern colony support. He also freed his slaves upon his death if I'm not mistaken. My main issue with him was buying the LA purchase from France because it really wasn't Constitutional but destiny would have this land mass inevitably belonging to the US.

this.

"vicious defender of slavery"?

Please support your position.

That is simply NOT true.

 

[XNavyNuke]

Jeff wrote the Declaration of Independence and said that "all men are created equal" and endowed unalienable rights.

No. Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration that was presented for discussion before the Continental Congress. Between one-third and one-half of the wording was ultimately changed by the representatives of other colonies before it was sent to publication.

Here is TJ actual words.
Jefferson’s “original Rough draught” of the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights[3] inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles & organising it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.

Needless to say, the delegates from the Carolina's were none to happy with TJ's languages on this and deleted it.

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:[11] and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

The wonderful thing about history is that you can guarantee what is taught in public schools is only what TPTB want you to learn. Education is what you search for yourself, not what is fed to you spoon by spoon from birth.

XNN

 

[klamath]

RP is his own man and should not be compared to anyone. Leaders that change to world for the better learn from the mistakes of past leaders. Jefferson had many good points but he knew slavery was against a free state yet for his own personal lifestyle chose to keep his slaves for HIS comfort. It was a hyprocrasy that cannot be reconciled. His vision of expaning the country from sea to shining sea regardless of who was presently on the land or who owned it is the very roots of modern neoconism. He also was a chickhawk. However he had a very great mind and many great things came from it.
RP in my opinion takes the good from leader past and discards the flaws. From kennedy during the cuban missle crisus to thefounding fathers.

 

[Bonnieblue]

Disliking Jefferson for having slaves is like saying the American revolution was pointless because it allowed slavery to continue. The fact of the matter is, slavery was an accepted institution of life at the time. There was no way to keep the union of the states and outlaw slavery at the time. Read the book "Empire of Liberty" for a good understanding of Jefferson's ultimate goals regarding liberty, free markets, and democracy. The Embargo against the British was due to their war-like acts including impressment (kidnapping American sailors and forcing them into the British navy) and piracy (British hired pirates to rob American, French, and other boats to allow them to continue their vast sea-based empire).

Yes, at the time of our Declaration of Independence there was slavery in all thirteen of the colonial republics; New England was heavily involved in the slave trade; and the New York banks were getting rich on it. In fact, the British, just as disingenuous as Lincoln, offered an emancipation proclamation, obviously for military purposes since slavery was still legal and flourishing in the British empire, to slaves. Many of them came over to the British side, but, the British had hoped for a slave rebellion which did not come, just as Lincoln would do nearly a century later.

Jefferson's embargo was utterly defensive in nature. It was a reaction against British acts of war. It was in fact a prudent step, much more prudent than Madison's step to war in 1812. It did have adverse effects; but it was much more prudent than war. Jefferson's embargo was not an offensive weapon, which unlike our immoral and unnecessary embargo of Iraq, did not kill approximately 600,000 women and children.

Do not think for a minute that Dr. Paul will not be beset by these ambiguities and paradoxes as President. One can already see those who will abandon him if he proves to be "impure" by their standards.

 

[Bonnieblue]

RP is his own man and should not be compared to anyone. Leaders that change to world for the better learn from the mistakes of past leaders. Jefferson had many good points but he knew slavery was against a free state yet for his own personal lifestyle chose to keep his slaves for HIS comfort. It was a hyprocrasy that cannot be reconciled. His vision of expaning the country from sea to shining sea regardless of who was presently on the land or who owned it is the very roots of modern neoconism. He also was a chickhawk. However he had a very great mind and many great things came from it.
RP in my opinion takes the good from leader past and discards the flaws. From kennedy during the cuban missle crisus to thefounding fathers.

I would be very careful about having discarded "flaws." I know of no man who does not have flaws, including Ron Paul. One sets oneself up for disappointment when one expects to find a flawless person; such a person does not exist. One must further wonder how one generation, beset by evil, sets itself up to judge another.

 

[Butchie]

Ron Paul is better than TJ. Jeff wrote the Declaration of Independence and said that "all men are created equal" and endowed unalienable rights. However, he must not have believed this as he himself owned slaves. I like TJ but this is the turd in the punch bowl for me. I'm curious if there was a founder who wasn't pro slavery or was an abolitionist.

Ben Franklin was pretty opposed to slavery, he fought very hard against it, in fact most of the founders from the North did, they just saw that at the time it would have torn apart the fragile Union they had just created and so they compromised right or wrong, I guess it's hard to say what I would have done at the time, stand for my principle and watch the country come apart or save the fight for another day.

 

[Bonnieblue]

RP is his own man and should not be compared to anyone. Leaders that change to world for the better learn from the mistakes of past leaders. Jefferson had many good points but he knew slavery was against a free state yet for his own personal lifestyle chose to keep his slaves for HIS comfort. It was a hyprocrasy that cannot be reconciled. His vision of expaning the country from sea to shining sea regardless of who was presently on the land or who owned it is the very roots of modern neoconism. He also was a chickhawk. However he had a very great mind and many great things came from it.
RP in my opinion takes the good from leader past and discards the flaws. From kennedy during the cuban missle crisus to thefounding fathers.

Give me a PM. I will be glad to dispute your claims.

 

[klamath]

I would be very careful about having discarded "flaws." I know of no man who does not have flaws, including Ron Paul. One sets oneself up for disappointment when one expects to find a flawless person; such a person does not exist. One must further wonder how one generation, beset by evil, sets itself up to judge another.

I already know RP's flaws.

 

[nbhadja]

Umm, I resemble this thread.

TJ was not perfect, no one is.

I know this is "spin", but for the most part the slaves owned by the Founders were treated better and fared much better in life than their counterparts in "free" Africa.

I am a proud white Honkey but I lived in Africa for more than 2 years. The American descendants of slaves today live their lives light years beyond their cousins in Africa today. Just ask a dirt farmer in Zimbabwe. And you can't even ask the millions of Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda - they've been brutally slaughtered and butchered. Black-on-black tribalism is far more deadly than racism or even slavery. JMHO

Africa is in extreme poverty, destabilized, violent because of the IMF, international central bankers, CIA propping up vicious puppet dictator governments. It is because of countries like America that Africa is like that.

 

[klamath]

Give me a PM. I will be glad to dispute your claims.

If you care to debate it can be done in the open. Can you show me solid proof that TJ did not own slaves and freed them while he enjoyed the lifestyle they provided him?

 

[bbartlog]

People who are versed in history and scholarship regarding colonial-era politics may well have some bones to pick with Jefferson. Which has exactly nothing to do with winning elections. Jefferson's name is a good one to be associated with in modern politics. Showing that Paul embodies some of his popular aphorisms is good strategy.

 

[klamath]

Ben Franklin was pretty opposed to slavery, he fought very hard against it, in fact most of the founders from the North did, they just saw that at the time it would have torn apart the fragile Union they had just created and so they compromised right or wrong, I guess it's hard to say what I would have done at the time, stand for my principle and watch the country come apart or save the fight for another day.

In hindsite they should have settled it then as it led to far worse consequences than to have the country divided later and reunited with the blood of millions..