Progressive Ideology

[MDlaxfan76]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

The ugly parts are important to show. But what is often missing from this discussion (and these revisions to history) is the context of the people compared to world norms.

Slavery was not seen in the same light as it is today. When there was nothing in the world- war, brutality, and slave labor was how societies and economies were built. Perspectives change. Civilizations grow, evolve and change. What was considered kosher then is not today.

I watched a movie the other day. It was made in 2007. So not THAT long ago. Many of the things said in the movie, were extremely offensive. Would probably get DMac banned from this forum if he posted them as his own- even as a joke.

Now consider that the topic we are discussing - slavery, had been used since 3500 BCE as THE form of labor for EVERYTHING. There were no machines, technology etc. It was just slave labor.

So slavery was going strong in the world for over 5,000 years. In America, it began 400 years ago. So when you look at it from that perspective, Jefferson's place in history was at the relative "end" of slavery. His political contributions were not perfect compared to today, but they were progressive for his time. He is a controversial and complicated figure because he was at the real tipping point for slavery. He was living during the transition. He had a foot in both worlds.

This is certainly an important point. Context definitely matters.

The peak of the Atlantic slave trade from Africa was in the 1780's.

But in reaction, indeed in horror, the abolitionist movement grew quickly in Europe.

Indeed, the anti-slavery, abolitionist movement was raging in Great Britain at the end of of the 1700's culminating in the 1807 end of British slave trade (Abolition of the Slave Trade Act). By this point majorities had formed, not small #'s, who believed slavery was immoral...Jefferson certainly would have been exposed to those views.

The US itself passed legislation that year going into effect in 1808 banning Atlantic slave trade...but not the ownership of slaves, the trading and selling of slaves in the US. Signed by Jefferson as President.

Jefferson could have freed his slaves at that point, or, as some did, upon his death (1826)...he did not. At that point, about 25% of the entire population in what was then the US were of African descent, most still in slavery (higher percentage in the south). And indeed, this is what makes Jefferson so troubling a figure, given his yes, "progressive" views in some respects, but in others, quite not so.

Indeed, his earlier writing with Madison, anonymously. the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, arguing a strict construction of the Constitution and for states rights was largely due to the importance of slavery to the south. Hugely problematic for generations thereafter, still today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_ ... esolutions

Here's another conundrum. How aware are most US citizens that the War of 1812 was declared by the US (supported by Jefferson's Democrat-Republican Party and opposed by Hamilton's Federalist Party) against the British (and Spain in the southern US) largely in order to expand US territory in lands controlled by indigenous tribes/nations? Further that Jefferson sought the annexation of Canada as well?

Definitely one of the most consequential figures in American history, but complicated. History is complicated...

[PizzaSnake]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

The ugly parts are important to show. But what is often missing from this discussion (and these revisions to history) is the context of the people compared to world norms.

Slavery was not seen in the same light as it is today. When there was nothing in the world- war, brutality, and slave labor was how societies and economies were built. Perspectives change. Civilizations grow, evolve and change. What was considered kosher then is not today.

I watched a movie the other day. It was made in 2007. So not THAT long ago. Many of the things said in the movie, were extremely offensive. Would probably get DMac banned from this forum if he posted them as his own- even as a joke.

Now consider that the topic we are discussing - slavery, had been used since 3500 BCE as THE form of labor for EVERYTHING. There were no machines, technology etc. It was just slave labor.

So slavery was going strong in the world for over 5,000 years. In America, it began 400 years ago. So when you look at it from that perspective, Jefferson's place in history was at the relative "end" of slavery. His political contributions were not perfect compared to today, but they were progressive for his time. He is a controversial and complicated figure because he was at the real tipping point for slavery. He was living during the transition. He had a foot in both worlds.

Read the “Dawn of Everything”. The authors do not support your “inevitability” of capitalism and top-down hierarchical organization of humanity.

“Drawing attention to the diversity of early human societies, it critiques traditional narratives of history's linear development from primitivism to civilization.[2] Instead, The Dawn of Everything posits that humans lived in large, complex, but decentralized polities for millennia.[3] It relies on archaeological evidence to show that early societies were diverse and developed numerous political structures.[4]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything

[youthathletics]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

The ugly parts are important to show. But what is often missing from this discussion (and these revisions to history) is the context of the people compared to world norms.

Slavery was not seen in the same light as it is today. When there was nothing in the world- war, brutality, and slave labor was how societies and economies were built. Perspectives change. Civilizations grow, evolve and change. What was considered kosher then is not today.

I watched a movie the other day. It was made in 2007. So not THAT long ago. Many of the things said in the movie, were extremely offensive. Would probably get DMac banned from this forum if he posted them as his own- even as a joke.

Now consider that the topic we are discussing - slavery, had been used since 3500 BCE as THE form of labor for EVERYTHING. There were no machines, technology etc. It was just slave labor.

So slavery was going strong in the world for over 5,000 years. In America, it began 400 years ago. So when you look at it from that perspective, Jefferson's place in history was at the relative "end" of slavery. His political contributions were not perfect compared to today, but they were progressive for his time. He is a controversial and complicated figure because he was at the real tipping point for slavery. He was living during the transition. He had a foot in both worlds.

Read the “Dawn of Everything”. The authors do not support your “inevitability” of capitalism and top-down hierarchical organization of humanity.

“Drawing attention to the diversity of early human societies, it critiques traditional narratives of history's linear development from primitivism to civilization.[2] Instead, The Dawn of Everything posits that humans lived in large, complex, but decentralized polities for millennia.[3] It relies on archaeological evidence to show that early societies were diverse and developed numerous political structures.[4]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything

Help me understand what your comment infers vs Krams". From that wiki link....the term 'slave(ry)" only appears twice, how does this counter Kram's post? Not following you....

[PizzaSnake]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

The ugly parts are important to show. But what is often missing from this discussion (and these revisions to history) is the context of the people compared to world norms.

Slavery was not seen in the same light as it is today. When there was nothing in the world- war, brutality, and slave labor was how societies and economies were built. Perspectives change. Civilizations grow, evolve and change. What was considered kosher then is not today.

I watched a movie the other day. It was made in 2007. So not THAT long ago. Many of the things said in the movie, were extremely offensive. Would probably get DMac banned from this forum if he posted them as his own- even as a joke.

Now consider that the topic we are discussing - slavery, had been used since 3500 BCE as THE form of labor for EVERYTHING. There were no machines, technology etc. It was just slave labor.

So slavery was going strong in the world for over 5,000 years. In America, it began 400 years ago. So when you look at it from that perspective, Jefferson's place in history was at the relative "end" of slavery. His political contributions were not perfect compared to today, but they were progressive for his time. He is a controversial and complicated figure because he was at the real tipping point for slavery. He was living during the transition. He had a foot in both worlds.

Read the “Dawn of Everything”. The authors do not support your “inevitability” of capitalism and top-down hierarchical organization of humanity.

“Drawing attention to the diversity of early human societies, it critiques traditional narratives of history's linear development from primitivism to civilization.[2] Instead, The Dawn of Everything posits that humans lived in large, complex, but decentralized polities for millennia.[3] It relies on archaeological evidence to show that early societies were diverse and developed numerous political structures.[4]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything

Help me understand what your comment infers vs Krams". From that wiki link....the term 'slave(ry)" only appears twice, how does this counter Kram's post? Not following you....

The linear view critiqued therein would suggest that slavery has its origins in the most primitive social and political structures and has been ubiquitous from inception. The authors challenge that linearity and inevitability of human history.

So, slavery should not be viewed as a persistent and inevitable consequence of human civilization. It is an abomination and any who profit from it are culpable. I include myself in that camp as I profit from its most recent incarnations: “cheap” goods and services resulting from exploitation of human labor and inequitable resource allocation.

Incidentally, all of us here are also inextricably enslaved n our on turn by the dictates of a growth-dependent capitalist system. Think you own any real property? Try not paying the vig to the tax authority and tell me what happens to your position.

[kramerica.inc]

No one living in a modern society today is without culpability.

If it is an abomination, what is the norm it strayed from? What is your suggestion to rectify? What do you suggest as the alternative?

[cradleandshoot]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

Who is trying to whitewash anything?? The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. Jeffersons history should be balanced between the good he did and the bad. That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present.

Has the pendulum swung to an un"balanced" state?
Or is there simply balance now?

You say "That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present." How do you know?

This article, this Fox News appearance...by this one "visitor"??? And you don't think it is relevant to recognize that the perceptions by this one "visitor" may well be biased by his history of racist writings and involvement? Does it not occur to you that what may well actually be a "balanced" portrayal of Jefferson at Monticello simply offends a racist, and writing about it gets him an appearance on Fox???

If one bothers to read what numerous fellow posters have responded, no one on here is calling for an unbalanced portrayal, for ignoring the immense contributions made by Jefferson, or by the other examples of Founders with significant personal flaws and contradictions.

Nope, merely a balanced view.

Jefferson is a particularly interesting set of contradictions, given the foundational vision for America he espoused in his inspirational writings, contrasted with his own personal choices. His home is a particularly apt place to highlight those contradictions as it was largely there that his personal choices were in highest relief.

Shifting gears just a bit, it seems to me that this examination of the writings, beliefs, and actions, of the Founders makes even more clear that "originalist" logic is inherently flawed. We should not look to the Founders or what they wrote as the perfect, much less sole, sources of wisdom on America. America should never be static, stuck in the past.

Rather, we should see that what the Founders set in motion, based on aspirational principles, requires ongoing work. Ongoing progress forward.

We can, and (IMO) should, debate on how fast to move in this "progress" (recognizing that all actions have consequences, often unintended), but what we should definitely not do is justify retrograde positions based on "text", as if "sacred", written in bygone eras by men whose personal flaws and compromises made them indeed imperfect.

MD, you are a stones throw away from Monticello. The author took the tour and came to his own conclusions. Why don't you do the same??? Easy , peasy solution MD all it requires is going on the tour and asking questions. I guess that obvious solution must have completely evaded you...

Sometimes MD, the solution is soooooooooo simple it almost jumps up and bites you in the ass. Hell, maybe if you pack a Yogi Bear picinic basket you could make it a nice long and leasurely bike ride.

[MDlaxfan76]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

Who is trying to whitewash anything?? The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. Jeffersons history should be balanced between the good he did and the bad. That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present.

Has the pendulum swung to an un"balanced" state?
Or is there simply balance now?

You say "That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present." How do you know?

This article, this Fox News appearance...by this one "visitor"??? And you don't think it is relevant to recognize that the perceptions by this one "visitor" may well be biased by his history of racist writings and involvement? Does it not occur to you that what may well actually be a "balanced" portrayal of Jefferson at Monticello simply offends a racist, and writing about it gets him an appearance on Fox???

If one bothers to read what numerous fellow posters have responded, no one on here is calling for an unbalanced portrayal, for ignoring the immense contributions made by Jefferson, or by the other examples of Founders with significant personal flaws and contradictions.

Nope, merely a balanced view.

Jefferson is a particularly interesting set of contradictions, given the foundational vision for America he espoused in his inspirational writings, contrasted with his own personal choices. His home is a particularly apt place to highlight those contradictions as it was largely there that his personal choices were in highest relief.

Shifting gears just a bit, it seems to me that this examination of the writings, beliefs, and actions, of the Founders makes even more clear that "originalist" logic is inherently flawed. We should not look to the Founders or what they wrote as the perfect, much less sole, sources of wisdom on America. America should never be static, stuck in the past.

Rather, we should see that what the Founders set in motion, based on aspirational principles, requires ongoing work. Ongoing progress forward.

We can, and (IMO) should, debate on how fast to move in this "progress" (recognizing that all actions have consequences, often unintended), but what we should definitely not do is justify retrograde positions based on "text", as if "sacred", written in bygone eras by men whose personal flaws and compromises made them indeed imperfect.

MD, you are a stones throw away from Monticello. The author took the tour and came to his own conclusions. Why don't you do the same??? Easy , peasy solution MD all it requires is going on the tour and asking questions. I guess that obvious solution must have completely evaded you...

Sometimes MD, the solution is soooooooooo simple it almost jumps up and bites you in the ass. Hell, maybe if you pack a Yogi Bear picinic basket you could make it a nice long and leasurely bike ride.

4 hours each way, cradle.
Not close.
(were you thinking of Mount Vernon? That's about an hour away by car)

I'd suggest that you go for yourself before buying into some guy's interpretation for you, especially a guy with known racist affiliations.

I last went on my dad's 75th with all his kids and grandkids; he was a big fan of Mr. Jefferson, UVA, etc. That was 17 years ago.

Kids were 11-14; my son was almost 12; Monticello tour certainly didn't mention slavery at the time...'servants' quarters'...that was the trip where we walked all over UVA, library tour focused heavily on Jefferson, etc...no mention that most of the old buildings were built with slave labor...where my dad lived on the Lawn etc, Rotunda; we went to the old graveyard...the kids were all a bit aghast when they noticed that many of the graves had Confederate flags on them, lots of little flags, far outnumbering the usual US flags...My son asked what was that about, don't students (eg black students) get offended by it...kids noticed, adults had been oblivious...that led to a very interesting discussion, as you might imagine...

My niece went to UVA and I was back several times, but didn't do the Monticello tour; her graduation was where I met Tucker Carlson whose daughter was a sorority sister and pal of my niece...she and her fiancé (also a Wahoo) are now living in Charlottesville...when I see her next I'll ask whether they've been out to Monticello...what she thinks. I do know where she came out on the removal of the Lee statue, supporting its removal. Jefferson would be different I think. But I'd think she'd want a "balanced" view...

[cradleandshoot]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

Who is trying to whitewash anything?? The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. Jeffersons history should be balanced between the good he did and the bad. That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present.

Has the pendulum swung to an un"balanced" state?
Or is there simply balance now?

You say "That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present." How do you know?

This article, this Fox News appearance...by this one "visitor"??? And you don't think it is relevant to recognize that the perceptions by this one "visitor" may well be biased by his history of racist writings and involvement? Does it not occur to you that what may well actually be a "balanced" portrayal of Jefferson at Monticello simply offends a racist, and writing about it gets him an appearance on Fox???

If one bothers to read what numerous fellow posters have responded, no one on here is calling for an unbalanced portrayal, for ignoring the immense contributions made by Jefferson, or by the other examples of Founders with significant personal flaws and contradictions.

Nope, merely a balanced view.

Jefferson is a particularly interesting set of contradictions, given the foundational vision for America he espoused in his inspirational writings, contrasted with his own personal choices. His home is a particularly apt place to highlight those contradictions as it was largely there that his personal choices were in highest relief.

Shifting gears just a bit, it seems to me that this examination of the writings, beliefs, and actions, of the Founders makes even more clear that "originalist" logic is inherently flawed. We should not look to the Founders or what they wrote as the perfect, much less sole, sources of wisdom on America. America should never be static, stuck in the past.

Rather, we should see that what the Founders set in motion, based on aspirational principles, requires ongoing work. Ongoing progress forward.

We can, and (IMO) should, debate on how fast to move in this "progress" (recognizing that all actions have consequences, often unintended), but what we should definitely not do is justify retrograde positions based on "text", as if "sacred", written in bygone eras by men whose personal flaws and compromises made them indeed imperfect.

MD, you are a stones throw away from Monticello. The author took the tour and came to his own conclusions. Why don't you do the same??? Easy , peasy solution MD all it requires is going on the tour and asking questions. I guess that obvious solution must have completely evaded you...

Sometimes MD, the solution is soooooooooo simple it almost jumps up and bites you in the ass. Hell, maybe if you pack a Yogi Bear picinic basket you could make it a nice long and leasurely bike ride.

4 hours each way, cradle.
Not close.
(were you thinking of Mount Vernon? That's about an hour away by car)

I'd suggest that you go for yourself before buying into some guy's interpretation for you, especially a guy with known racist affiliations.

I last went on my dad's 75th with all his kids and grandkids; he was a big fan of Mr. Jefferson, UVA, etc. That was 17 years ago.

Kids were 11-14; my son was almost 12; Monticello tour certainly didn't mention slavery at the time...'servants' quarters'...that was the trip where we walked all over UVA, library tour focused heavily on Jefferson, etc...no mention that most of the old buildings were built with slave labor...where my dad lived on the Lawn etc, Rotunda; we went to the old graveyard...the kids were all a bit aghast when they noticed that many of the graves had Confederate flags on them, lots of little flags, far outnumbering the usual US flags...My son asked what was that about, don't students (eg black students) get offended by it...kids noticed, adults had been oblivious...that led to a very interesting discussion, as you might imagine...

My niece went to UVA and I was back several times, but didn't do the Monticello tour; her graduation was where I met Tucker Carlson whose daughter was a sorority sister and pal of my niece...she and her fiancé (also a Wahoo) are now living in Charlottesville...when I see her next I'll ask whether they've been out to Monticello...what she thinks. I do know where she came out on the removal of the Lee statue, supporting its removal. Jefferson would be different I think. But I'd think she'd want a "balanced" view...

I'm not buying into anything MD. If you read the article from the alleged white racist supremacist SOB he posted a bunch of pictures from his tour of Monticello. I'm certain one of our fellow posters will take the tour in the near future. The assumption from the usual suspects on this forum painted a picture of the author as a typical racist white supremacist. His picture makes him look like a Pee Wee Herman clone. Throwing labels around MD is something your FLP friends are becoming more and more comfortable with everyday. Those supporters of Joe MaCarthty were equally as comfortable accusing people of being commies. You appear to be equally as anxious about calling people you disagree with white supremacists. Silly me.. tailgunner Joe thought he was right as well. Tailgunner Joe had the same type of individuals supporting him. In America MD, you have every right to a flaming pinko commie just like you have a right to be a white supremacist. We don't have to like them or accept them. I have to accept the fact that some Americans will burn our flag and spit on it and stomp on it. I feel the same way about them as you feel about white supremacists. We are fortunate enough to live in a country that allows our citizens to speak their minds. If you have an alternative point of view that circumvents the rights guaranteed to all of us in the US Constitution ...fire away, I'm all ears. Our founding fathers gave us the right to act like morons. Our citizens today are taking that right to heart.

[Kismet]

[Our founding fathers gave us the right to act like morons. Our citizens today are taking that right to heart.

They sure did. You're welcome.

AS Dumb and Dumber personified, I guess that does, in some way, make you an expert. Congratulations. You win a free trip to Monticello.

[MDlaxfan76]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

Who is trying to whitewash anything?? The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. Jeffersons history should be balanced between the good he did and the bad. That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present.

Has the pendulum swung to an un"balanced" state?
Or is there simply balance now?

You say "That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present." How do you know?

This article, this Fox News appearance...by this one "visitor"??? And you don't think it is relevant to recognize that the perceptions by this one "visitor" may well be biased by his history of racist writings and involvement? Does it not occur to you that what may well actually be a "balanced" portrayal of Jefferson at Monticello simply offends a racist, and writing about it gets him an appearance on Fox???

If one bothers to read what numerous fellow posters have responded, no one on here is calling for an unbalanced portrayal, for ignoring the immense contributions made by Jefferson, or by the other examples of Founders with significant personal flaws and contradictions.

Nope, merely a balanced view.

Jefferson is a particularly interesting set of contradictions, given the foundational vision for America he espoused in his inspirational writings, contrasted with his own personal choices. His home is a particularly apt place to highlight those contradictions as it was largely there that his personal choices were in highest relief.

Shifting gears just a bit, it seems to me that this examination of the writings, beliefs, and actions, of the Founders makes even more clear that "originalist" logic is inherently flawed. We should not look to the Founders or what they wrote as the perfect, much less sole, sources of wisdom on America. America should never be static, stuck in the past.

Rather, we should see that what the Founders set in motion, based on aspirational principles, requires ongoing work. Ongoing progress forward.

We can, and (IMO) should, debate on how fast to move in this "progress" (recognizing that all actions have consequences, often unintended), but what we should definitely not do is justify retrograde positions based on "text", as if "sacred", written in bygone eras by men whose personal flaws and compromises made them indeed imperfect.

MD, you are a stones throw away from Monticello. The author took the tour and came to his own conclusions. Why don't you do the same??? Easy , peasy solution MD all it requires is going on the tour and asking questions. I guess that obvious solution must have completely evaded you...

Sometimes MD, the solution is soooooooooo simple it almost jumps up and bites you in the ass. Hell, maybe if you pack a Yogi Bear picinic basket you could make it a nice long and leasurely bike ride.

4 hours each way, cradle.
Not close.
(were you thinking of Mount Vernon? That's about an hour away by car)

I'd suggest that you go for yourself before buying into some guy's interpretation for you, especially a guy with known racist affiliations.

I last went on my dad's 75th with all his kids and grandkids; he was a big fan of Mr. Jefferson, UVA, etc. That was 17 years ago.

Kids were 11-14; my son was almost 12; Monticello tour certainly didn't mention slavery at the time...'servants' quarters'...that was the trip where we walked all over UVA, library tour focused heavily on Jefferson, etc...no mention that most of the old buildings were built with slave labor...where my dad lived on the Lawn etc, Rotunda; we went to the old graveyard...the kids were all a bit aghast when they noticed that many of the graves had Confederate flags on them, lots of little flags, far outnumbering the usual US flags...My son asked what was that about, don't students (eg black students) get offended by it...kids noticed, adults had been oblivious...that led to a very interesting discussion, as you might imagine...

My niece went to UVA and I was back several times, but didn't do the Monticello tour; her graduation was where I met Tucker Carlson whose daughter was a sorority sister and pal of my niece...she and her fiancé (also a Wahoo) are now living in Charlottesville...when I see her next I'll ask whether they've been out to Monticello...what she thinks. I do know where she came out on the removal of the Lee statue, supporting its removal. Jefferson would be different I think. But I'd think she'd want a "balanced" view...

I'm not buying into anything MD. If you read the article from the alleged white racist supremacist SOB he posted a bunch of pictures from his tour of Monticello. I'm certain one of our fellow posters will take the tour in the near future. The assumption from the usual suspects on this forum painted a picture of the author as a typical racist white supremacist. His picture makes him look like a Pee Wee Herman clone. Throwing labels around MD is something your FLP friends are becoming more and more comfortable with everyday. Those supporters of Joe MaCarthty were equally as comfortable accusing people of being commies. You appear to be equally as anxious about calling people you disagree with white supremacists. Silly me.. tailgunner Joe thought he was right as well. Tailgunner Joe had the same type of individuals supporting him. In America MD, you have every right to a flaming pinko commie just like you have a right to be a white supremacist. We don't have to like them or accept them. I have to accept the fact that some Americans will burn our flag and spit on it and stomp on it. I feel the same way about them as you feel about white supremacists. We are fortunate enough to live in a country that allows our citizens to speak their minds. If you have an alternative point of view that circumvents the rights guaranteed to all of us in the US Constitution ...fire away, I'm all ears. Our founding fathers gave us the right to act like morons. Our citizens today are taking that right to heart.

Go there yourself.

The guy has a clear history...are you actually arguing that though he may well have a very significant bias, that ONE, single writer is THE person you want to listen to characterize the Monticello presentation as some sort of whacko left wing nonsense? Because he took some pictures?

I don't care what this guy looks like...I do care what he's written, etc. So, yeah, his racism makes this story, at a minimum, highly suspect.

But for you, apparently, just because he's gotten himself noticed as pushing back against 'woke' this is the guy you want to believe...

[cradleandshoot]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

Who is trying to whitewash anything?? The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. Jeffersons history should be balanced between the good he did and the bad. That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present.

Has the pendulum swung to an un"balanced" state?
Or is there simply balance now?

You say "That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present." How do you know?

This article, this Fox News appearance...by this one "visitor"??? And you don't think it is relevant to recognize that the perceptions by this one "visitor" may well be biased by his history of racist writings and involvement? Does it not occur to you that what may well actually be a "balanced" portrayal of Jefferson at Monticello simply offends a racist, and writing about it gets him an appearance on Fox???

If one bothers to read what numerous fellow posters have responded, no one on here is calling for an unbalanced portrayal, for ignoring the immense contributions made by Jefferson, or by the other examples of Founders with significant personal flaws and contradictions.

Nope, merely a balanced view.

Jefferson is a particularly interesting set of contradictions, given the foundational vision for America he espoused in his inspirational writings, contrasted with his own personal choices. His home is a particularly apt place to highlight those contradictions as it was largely there that his personal choices were in highest relief.

Shifting gears just a bit, it seems to me that this examination of the writings, beliefs, and actions, of the Founders makes even more clear that "originalist" logic is inherently flawed. We should not look to the Founders or what they wrote as the perfect, much less sole, sources of wisdom on America. America should never be static, stuck in the past.

Rather, we should see that what the Founders set in motion, based on aspirational principles, requires ongoing work. Ongoing progress forward.

We can, and (IMO) should, debate on how fast to move in this "progress" (recognizing that all actions have consequences, often unintended), but what we should definitely not do is justify retrograde positions based on "text", as if "sacred", written in bygone eras by men whose personal flaws and compromises made them indeed imperfect.

MD, you are a stones throw away from Monticello. The author took the tour and came to his own conclusions. Why don't you do the same??? Easy , peasy solution MD all it requires is going on the tour and asking questions. I guess that obvious solution must have completely evaded you...

Sometimes MD, the solution is soooooooooo simple it almost jumps up and bites you in the ass. Hell, maybe if you pack a Yogi Bear picinic basket you could make it a nice long and leasurely bike ride.

4 hours each way, cradle.
Not close.
(were you thinking of Mount Vernon? That's about an hour away by car)

I'd suggest that you go for yourself before buying into some guy's interpretation for you, especially a guy with known racist affiliations.

I last went on my dad's 75th with all his kids and grandkids; he was a big fan of Mr. Jefferson, UVA, etc. That was 17 years ago.

Kids were 11-14; my son was almost 12; Monticello tour certainly didn't mention slavery at the time...'servants' quarters'...that was the trip where we walked all over UVA, library tour focused heavily on Jefferson, etc...no mention that most of the old buildings were built with slave labor...where my dad lived on the Lawn etc, Rotunda; we went to the old graveyard...the kids were all a bit aghast when they noticed that many of the graves had Confederate flags on them, lots of little flags, far outnumbering the usual US flags...My son asked what was that about, don't students (eg black students) get offended by it...kids noticed, adults had been oblivious...that led to a very interesting discussion, as you might imagine...

My niece went to UVA and I was back several times, but didn't do the Monticello tour; her graduation was where I met Tucker Carlson whose daughter was a sorority sister and pal of my niece...she and her fiancé (also a Wahoo) are now living in Charlottesville...when I see her next I'll ask whether they've been out to Monticello...what she thinks. I do know where she came out on the removal of the Lee statue, supporting its removal. Jefferson would be different I think. But I'd think she'd want a "balanced" view...

I'm not buying into anything MD. If you read the article from the alleged white racist supremacist SOB he posted a bunch of pictures from his tour of Monticello. I'm certain one of our fellow posters will take the tour in the near future. The assumption from the usual suspects on this forum painted a picture of the author as a typical racist white supremacist. His picture makes him look like a Pee Wee Herman clone. Throwing labels around MD is something your FLP friends are becoming more and more comfortable with everyday. Those supporters of Joe MaCarthty were equally as comfortable accusing people of being commies. You appear to be equally as anxious about calling people you disagree with white supremacists. Silly me.. tailgunner Joe thought he was right as well. Tailgunner Joe had the same type of individuals supporting him. In America MD, you have every right to a flaming pinko commie just like you have a right to be a white supremacist. We don't have to like them or accept them. I have to accept the fact that some Americans will burn our flag and spit on it and stomp on it. I feel the same way about them as you feel about white supremacists. We are fortunate enough to live in a country that allows our citizens to speak their minds. If you have an alternative point of view that circumvents the rights guaranteed to all of us in the US Constitution ...fire away, I'm all ears. Our founding fathers gave us the right to act like morons. Our citizens today are taking that right to heart.

Go there yourself.

The guy has a clear history...are you actually arguing that though he may well have a very significant bias, that ONE, single writer is THE person you want to listen to characterize the Monticello presentation as some sort of whacko left wing nonsense? Because he took some pictures?

I don't care what this guy looks like...I do care what he's written, etc. So, yeah, his racism makes this story, at a minimum, highly suspect.

But for you, apparently, just because he's gotten himself noticed as pushing back against 'woke' this is the guy you want to believe...

It is not my job nor obligation to throw a label on him. I have been trying on my own to stop myself from calling individuals on this forum by a FLP identity. When I do use the term in referencing group thought. My original perspective is still what nobody has addressed. Does the article written have merit at face value? If the author is lying or exaggerating it won't be difficult to determine. FTR have you reference to a guidebook for how to determine who a white racist or who any racist is for that manner? I'm labeled on this forum by many as a FRC nutjob. If they ever lose the FRC I'm fine with being a nutjob. My point in posting this article was focused on how Jefferson is being portrayed by the people running Monticello. If the debate is to be focused on Jefferson the slave owner then a broader perspective on a complicated man is being ignored. You and I both mentioned the word balance. That is the operative word in the context of what the people in charge of running Monticello are putting forth to the visitors.

[MDlaxfan76]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

Who is trying to whitewash anything?? The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. Jeffersons history should be balanced between the good he did and the bad. That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present.

Has the pendulum swung to an un"balanced" state?
Or is there simply balance now?

You say "That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present." How do you know?

This article, this Fox News appearance...by this one "visitor"??? And you don't think it is relevant to recognize that the perceptions by this one "visitor" may well be biased by his history of racist writings and involvement? Does it not occur to you that what may well actually be a "balanced" portrayal of Jefferson at Monticello simply offends a racist, and writing about it gets him an appearance on Fox???

If one bothers to read what numerous fellow posters have responded, no one on here is calling for an unbalanced portrayal, for ignoring the immense contributions made by Jefferson, or by the other examples of Founders with significant personal flaws and contradictions.

Nope, merely a balanced view.

Jefferson is a particularly interesting set of contradictions, given the foundational vision for America he espoused in his inspirational writings, contrasted with his own personal choices. His home is a particularly apt place to highlight those contradictions as it was largely there that his personal choices were in highest relief.

Shifting gears just a bit, it seems to me that this examination of the writings, beliefs, and actions, of the Founders makes even more clear that "originalist" logic is inherently flawed. We should not look to the Founders or what they wrote as the perfect, much less sole, sources of wisdom on America. America should never be static, stuck in the past.

Rather, we should see that what the Founders set in motion, based on aspirational principles, requires ongoing work. Ongoing progress forward.

We can, and (IMO) should, debate on how fast to move in this "progress" (recognizing that all actions have consequences, often unintended), but what we should definitely not do is justify retrograde positions based on "text", as if "sacred", written in bygone eras by men whose personal flaws and compromises made them indeed imperfect.

MD, you are a stones throw away from Monticello. The author took the tour and came to his own conclusions. Why don't you do the same??? Easy , peasy solution MD all it requires is going on the tour and asking questions. I guess that obvious solution must have completely evaded you...

Sometimes MD, the solution is soooooooooo simple it almost jumps up and bites you in the ass. Hell, maybe if you pack a Yogi Bear picinic basket you could make it a nice long and leasurely bike ride.

4 hours each way, cradle.
Not close.
(were you thinking of Mount Vernon? That's about an hour away by car)

I'd suggest that you go for yourself before buying into some guy's interpretation for you, especially a guy with known racist affiliations.

I last went on my dad's 75th with all his kids and grandkids; he was a big fan of Mr. Jefferson, UVA, etc. That was 17 years ago.

Kids were 11-14; my son was almost 12; Monticello tour certainly didn't mention slavery at the time...'servants' quarters'...that was the trip where we walked all over UVA, library tour focused heavily on Jefferson, etc...no mention that most of the old buildings were built with slave labor...where my dad lived on the Lawn etc, Rotunda; we went to the old graveyard...the kids were all a bit aghast when they noticed that many of the graves had Confederate flags on them, lots of little flags, far outnumbering the usual US flags...My son asked what was that about, don't students (eg black students) get offended by it...kids noticed, adults had been oblivious...that led to a very interesting discussion, as you might imagine...

My niece went to UVA and I was back several times, but didn't do the Monticello tour; her graduation was where I met Tucker Carlson whose daughter was a sorority sister and pal of my niece...she and her fiancé (also a Wahoo) are now living in Charlottesville...when I see her next I'll ask whether they've been out to Monticello...what she thinks. I do know where she came out on the removal of the Lee statue, supporting its removal. Jefferson would be different I think. But I'd think she'd want a "balanced" view...

I'm not buying into anything MD. If you read the article from the alleged white racist supremacist SOB he posted a bunch of pictures from his tour of Monticello. I'm certain one of our fellow posters will take the tour in the near future. The assumption from the usual suspects on this forum painted a picture of the author as a typical racist white supremacist. His picture makes him look like a Pee Wee Herman clone. Throwing labels around MD is something your FLP friends are becoming more and more comfortable with everyday. Those supporters of Joe MaCarthty were equally as comfortable accusing people of being commies. You appear to be equally as anxious about calling people you disagree with white supremacists. Silly me.. tailgunner Joe thought he was right as well. Tailgunner Joe had the same type of individuals supporting him. In America MD, you have every right to a flaming pinko commie just like you have a right to be a white supremacist. We don't have to like them or accept them. I have to accept the fact that some Americans will burn our flag and spit on it and stomp on it. I feel the same way about them as you feel about white supremacists. We are fortunate enough to live in a country that allows our citizens to speak their minds. If you have an alternative point of view that circumvents the rights guaranteed to all of us in the US Constitution ...fire away, I'm all ears. Our founding fathers gave us the right to act like morons. Our citizens today are taking that right to heart.

Go there yourself.

The guy has a clear history...are you actually arguing that though he may well have a very significant bias, that ONE, single writer is THE person you want to listen to characterize the Monticello presentation as some sort of whacko left wing nonsense? Because he took some pictures?

I don't care what this guy looks like...I do care what he's written, etc. So, yeah, his racism makes this story, at a minimum, highly suspect.

But for you, apparently, just because he's gotten himself noticed as pushing back against 'woke' this is the guy you want to believe...

It is not my job nor obligation to throw a label on him. I have been trying on my own to stop myself from calling individuals on this forum by a FLP identity. When I do use the term in referencing group thought. My original perspective is still what nobody has addressed. Does the article written have merit at face value? If the author is lying or exaggerating it won't be difficult to determine. FTR have you reference to a guidebook for how to determine who a white racist or who any racist is for that manner? I'm labeled on this forum by many as a FRC nutjob. If they ever lose the FRC I'm fine with being a nutjob. My point in posting this article was focused on how Jefferson is being portrayed by the people running Monticello. If the debate is to be focused on Jefferson the slave owner then a broader perspective on a complicated man is being ignored. You and I both mentioned the word balance. That is the operative word in the context of what the people in charge of running Monticello are putting forth to the visitors.

I'd simply suggest that you follow the full thread discussion to understand that pretty much everyone on here is advocating for "balance". The degree to which Jefferson's complications are addressed is a matter of valid debate, but the reality is that those complications were entirely unaddressed in the Monticello exhibition when I was there 18 years ago and nearly entirely unaddressed in the library presentation...it was all "great man", no complications to that narrative.

Monticello, under Jefferson, was a slave plantation, with all that such entailed. It's appropriate, IMO, that those aspects of Jefferson's history, that plantation's history, receive more attention there than in an exhibit of the Declaration of Independence, though both such should, again just IMO, be referenced in each...just to a different degree.

As to this particular singular writer, no, I certainly don't trust his "report" to not be selectively bigoted. He has way too much history of such to give him or his "article" the benefit of the doubt. My hunch is that he is seeking and receiving attention from the right wing media world for a "Cause" that has animated much of the South for many generations. And I reject that "Cause"...way, way too many horrific acts committed, over many generations, in the name of that "Cause" to allow any credibility to its continuing proponents.

Further, my hunch is that at the Monticello presentation it is clear that Jefferson and Monticello receive the attention they do because of his being a founder and President of immense consequence. But that's not what this particular "Cause" proponent is going to highlight in his selective portrayal of his visit.

So, no "at face value", IMO the article does not have "merit". It does, at least to me, raise an interesting question of how significantly the portrayal of Jefferson there has shifted and why it took so long to do so.

[cradleandshoot]

The author cradle keeps referring to is presenting a tired view that telling the truth about slavery and how it permeated the lives of the time is a problem because it ‘tarnishes’ the white male supremacist view that these things were just fine to be left alone.

In other words, we must whitewash our history to keep our children from seeing the ugly parts.

Who is trying to whitewash anything?? The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. Jeffersons history should be balanced between the good he did and the bad. That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present.

Has the pendulum swung to an un"balanced" state?
Or is there simply balance now?

You say "That does not appear to be how Jeffersons legacy is being portrayed at present." How do you know?

This article, this Fox News appearance...by this one "visitor"??? And you don't think it is relevant to recognize that the perceptions by this one "visitor" may well be biased by his history of racist writings and involvement? Does it not occur to you that what may well actually be a "balanced" portrayal of Jefferson at Monticello simply offends a racist, and writing about it gets him an appearance on Fox???

If one bothers to read what numerous fellow posters have responded, no one on here is calling for an unbalanced portrayal, for ignoring the immense contributions made by Jefferson, or by the other examples of Founders with significant personal flaws and contradictions.

Nope, merely a balanced view.

Jefferson is a particularly interesting set of contradictions, given the foundational vision for America he espoused in his inspirational writings, contrasted with his own personal choices. His home is a particularly apt place to highlight those contradictions as it was largely there that his personal choices were in highest relief.

Shifting gears just a bit, it seems to me that this examination of the writings, beliefs, and actions, of the Founders makes even more clear that "originalist" logic is inherently flawed. We should not look to the Founders or what they wrote as the perfect, much less sole, sources of wisdom on America. America should never be static, stuck in the past.

Rather, we should see that what the Founders set in motion, based on aspirational principles, requires ongoing work. Ongoing progress forward.

We can, and (IMO) should, debate on how fast to move in this "progress" (recognizing that all actions have consequences, often unintended), but what we should definitely not do is justify retrograde positions based on "text", as if "sacred", written in bygone eras by men whose personal flaws and compromises made them indeed imperfect.

MD, you are a stones throw away from Monticello. The author took the tour and came to his own conclusions. Why don't you do the same??? Easy , peasy solution MD all it requires is going on the tour and asking questions. I guess that obvious solution must have completely evaded you...

Sometimes MD, the solution is soooooooooo simple it almost jumps up and bites you in the ass. Hell, maybe if you pack a Yogi Bear picinic basket you could make it a nice long and leasurely bike ride.

4 hours each way, cradle.
Not close.
(were you thinking of Mount Vernon? That's about an hour away by car)

I'd suggest that you go for yourself before buying into some guy's interpretation for you, especially a guy with known racist affiliations.

I last went on my dad's 75th with all his kids and grandkids; he was a big fan of Mr. Jefferson, UVA, etc. That was 17 years ago.

Kids were 11-14; my son was almost 12; Monticello tour certainly didn't mention slavery at the time...'servants' quarters'...that was the trip where we walked all ov NJer UVA, library tour focused heavily on Jefferson, etc...no mention that most of the old buildings were built with slave labor...where my dad lived on the Lawn etc, Rotunda; we went to the old graveyard...the kids were all a bit aghast when they noticed that many of the graves had Confederate flags on them, lots of little flags, far outnumbering the usual US flags...My son asked what was that about, don't students (eg black students) get offended by it...kids noticed, adults had been oblivious...that led to a very interesting discussion, as you might imagine...

My niece went to UVA and I was back several times, but didn't do the Monticello tour; her graduation was where I met Tucker Carlson whose daughter was a sorority sister and pal of my niece...she and her fiancé (also a Wahoo) are now living in Charlottesville...when I see her next I'll ask whether they've been out to Monticello...what she thinks. I do know where she came out on the removal of the Lee statue, supporting its removal. Jefferson would be different I think. But I'd think she'd want a "balanced" view...

I'm not buying into anything MD. If you read the article from the alleged white racist supremacist SOB he posted a bunch of pictures from his tour of Monticello. I'm certain one of our fellow posters will take the tour in the near future. The assumption from the usual suspects on this forum painted a picture of the author as a typical racist white supremacist. His picture makes him look like a Pee Wee Herman clone. Throwing labels around MD is something your FLP friends are becoming more and more comfortable with everyday. Those supporters of Joe MaCarthty were equally as comfortable accusing people of being commies. You appear to be equally as anxious about calling people you disagree with white supremacists. Silly me.. tailgunner Joe thought he was right as well. Tailgunner Joe had the same type of individuals supporting him. In America MD, you have every right to a flaming pinko commie just like you have a right to be a white supremacist. We don't have to like them or accept them. I have to accept the fact that some Americans will burn our flag and spit on it and stomp on it. I feel the same way about them as you feel about white supremacists. We are fortunate enough to live in a country that allows our citizens to speak their minds. If you have an alternative point of view that circumvents the rights guaranteed to all of us in the US Constitution ...fire away, I'm all ears. Our founding fathers gave us the right to act like morons. Our citizens today are taking that right to heart.

Go there yourself.

The guy has a clear history...are you actually arguing that though he may well have a very significant bias, that ONE, single writer is THE person you want to listen to characterize the Monticello presentation as some sort of whacko left wing nonsense? Because he took some pictures?

I don't care what this guy looks like...I do care what he's written, etc. So, yeah, his racism makes this story, at a minimum, highly suspect.

But for you, apparently, just because he's gotten himself noticed as pushing back against 'woke' this is the guy you want to believe...

It is not my job nor obligation to throw a label on him. I have been trying on my own to stop myself from calling individuals on this forum by a FLP identity. When I do use the term in referencing group thought. My original perspective is still what nobody has addressed. Does the article written have merit at face value? If the author is lying or exaggerating it won't be difficult to determine. FTR have you reference to a guidebook for how to determine who a white racist or who any racist is for that manner? I'm labeled on this forum by many as a FRC nutjob. If they ever lose the FRC I'm fine with being a nutjob. My point in posting this article was focused on how Jefferson is being portrayed by the people running Monticello. If the debate is to be focused on Jefferson the slave owner then a broader perspective on a complicated man is being ignored. You and I both mentioned the word balance. That is the operative word in the context of what the people in charge of running Monticello are putting forth to the visitors.

I'd simply suggest that you follow the full thread discussion to understand that pretty much everyone on here is advocating for "balance". The degree to which Jefferson's complications are addressed is a matter of valid debate, but the reality is that those complications were entirely unaddressed in the Monticello exhibition when I was there 18 years ago and nearly entirely unaddressed in the library presentation...it was all "great man", no complications to that narrative.

Monticello, under Jefferson, was a slave plantation, with all that such entailed. It's appropriate, IMO, that those aspects of Jefferson's history, that plantation's history, receive more attention there than in an exhibit of the Declaration of Independence, though both such should, again just IMO, be referenced in each...just to a different degree.

As to this particular singular writer, no, I certainly don't trust his "report" to not be selectively bigoted. He has way too much history of such to give him or his "article" the benefit of the doubt. My hunch is that he is seeking and receiving attention from the right wing media world for a "Cause" that has animated much of the South for many generations. And I reject that "Cause"...way, way too many horrific acts committed, over many generations, in the name of that "Cause" to allow any credibility to its continuing proponents.

Further, my hunch is that at the Monticello presentation it is clear that Jefferson and Monticello receive the attention they do because of his being a founder and President of immense consequence. But that's not what this particular "Cause" proponent is going to highlight in his selective portrayal of his visit.

So, no "at face value", IMO the article does not have "merit". It does, at least to me, raise an interesting question of how significantly the portrayal of Jefferson there has shifted and why it took so long to do so.

I'm not giving Jefferson a pass. I do understand this...he was willing to risk his life to create the United States of America. Had the revolution failed Jefferson would have been swinging at the end of a rope from a tree. You have an opinion how that scenario would have played out? Our founding fathers were imperfect people. There is no question there. They were forced with a conundrum, pro slavery or anti slavery. They had no other option, regarding slavery they had to make a deal with the devil. We paid the price for that compromise via our bloody civil war. If you have a better option our founding fathers should have chosen I'm all ears waiting to hear what it is. Without the 13 states being united in the cause for independence from Britain we would be discussing a moot point. There would be no United States of America. There would be no Washington, Adams, Jefferson or Franklin. Nobody would have to give a chit about the slave plantation at Monticello. Without our founding fathers with all of their flaws we would not be having this conversation now would we?

[MDlaxfan76]

"I'm not giving Jefferson a pass. I do understand this...he was willing to risk his life to create the United States of America. Had the revolution failed Jefferson would have been swinging at the end of a rope from a tree. You have a opinion how that scenario would have played out? Our founding fathers were non perfect people imperfect people. There is no question there. They were forced with a conundrum, pro slavery or anti slavery. They had no other option, regarding slavery they had to make a deal with the devil. We paid the price for that compromise via our bloody civil war. If you have a better option our founding fathers should have chosen I'm all ears waiting to hear what it is. Without the 13 states being united in the cause for independence from Britain we would be discussing a moot point. There would be no United States of America. There would be no Washington, Adams, Jefferson or Franklin. Nobody would have to give a chit about the slave plantation at Monticello. Without our founding fathers with all of their flaws we would not be having this conversation now would we?"

Of course that's why we're interested in them.

But I disagree that there's no alternative path which could have been taken, certainly by these men individually.

And really 'out there', I'm not all sure that we wouldn't have eventually had something very much akin to the United States of America without the Revolution at that specific time.

First, the revolution could have come later (ala other independence movement within the British Empire) and, moreover, could have come after British slave trade was ended (1807) and after when Britain passed legislation freeing slaves progressively in all of its colonies (1833)...of course, we have no idea how that would have all played out...maybe we'd be another Canada for that matter.

But back to the individual men...they could have (and IMO should have) made different personal decisions regarding their own participation in slavery, which so contradicted the aspirational framework they had supposedly declared their independence from Britain to achieve. They knew and understood the morality argument that soon was to convince a majority of British and then Americans and certainly could have chosen to side with the abolitionists before they died.

I'd also suggest that "price" "we" "paid" for that compromise was much more than just the Civil War...horrific as it certainly was, there was great horror prior and post for many Americans....and we're still paying for what many call America's 'original sin'.

[jhu72]

"I'm not giving Jefferson a pass. I do understand this...he was willing to risk his life to create the United States of America. Had the revolution failed Jefferson would have been swinging at the end of a rope from a tree. You have a opinion how that scenario would have played out? Our founding fathers were non perfect people imperfect people. There is no question there. They were forced with a conundrum, pro slavery or anti slavery. They had no other option, regarding slavery they had to make a deal with the devil. We paid the price for that compromise via our bloody civil war. If you have a better option our founding fathers should have chosen I'm all ears waiting to hear what it is. Without the 13 states being united in the cause for independence from Britain we would be discussing a moot point. There would be no United States of America. There would be no Washington, Adams, Jefferson or Franklin. Nobody would have to give a chit about the slave plantation at Monticello. Without our founding fathers with all of their flaws we would not be having this conversation now would we?"

Of course that's why we're interested in them.

But I disagree that there's no alternative path which could have been taken, certainly by these men individually.

And really 'out there', I'm not all sure that we wouldn't have eventually had something very much akin to the United States of America without the Revolution at that specific time.

First, the revolution could have come later (ala other independence movement within the British Empire) and, moreover, could have come after British slave trade was ended (1807) and after when Britain passed legislation freeing slaves progressively in all of its colonies (1833)...of course, we have no idea how that would have all played out...maybe we'd be another Canada for that matter.

But back to the individual men...they could have (and IMO should have) made different personal decisions regarding their own participation in slavery, which so contradicted the aspirational framework they had supposedly declared their independence from Britain to achieve. They knew and understood the morality argument that soon was to convince a majority of British and then Americans and certainly could have chosen to side with the abolitionists before they died.

I'd also suggest that "price" "we" "paid" for that compromise was much more than just the Civil War...horrific as it certainly was, there was great horror prior and post for many Americans....and we're still paying for what many call America's 'original sin'.

Everyday!

[dislaxxic]

Hot deals: A consumer’s guide to the new climate law

"Easy Money" pushed out the door to Welfare Queens and political cronies??

Not so fast, Chester. You gotta WORK for these tax credits.

Encouragement to American manufacturers to keep their operations domestic...that's a good one, right?

[Farfromgeneva]

Is this really a safety net issue or just for political gain? I can’t stand this focus and these efforts in a number of levels and someone is going to have to explain why we’ve subsidized student debt and higher Ed all these years only to turn around and cancel the price of obtaining it. Makes no sense to be a lender and then ultimately forgive debt. Dumb, creates an entire and layers of admin and frictions that aren’t necessary if this is the end goal. End DOE lending and debt subsidies to college students altogether if we’re going to forgive debt and make people assume the full cost of it (and higher Ed industry to rationalize where everyone professors here know this desperately needed and not just in athletics).

Biden's student loan test

Hans Nichols
Hans Nichols
Sophia Cai

Axios on facebook

Axios on twitter

Axios on linkedin

Axios on email
Illustration of a donkey hoof and elephant trunk holding up a graduation cap.
Illustration: Megan Robinson/Axios
In deciding to cancel some student loan debt, President Biden is carrying out a campaign promise that could leave progressive and working-class Democrats unsatisfied.

Driving the news: White House officials have told congressional allies that the president plans to cancel $10,000 in debt for many Americans, with an announcement expected today, according to people familiar with the matter.

Officials also expect Biden to extend the moratorium on loan repayments, which then-President Trump paused in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, until the end of the year.
Congressional elections are ten weeks away, and Biden is looking to motivate young, progressive voters.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke with Biden Tuesday night and urged him to cancel as much student loan debt as he can, according to a Democrat familiar with the call.
White House officials declined to comment on Biden's plans before he announces them.
Between the lines: While eliminating $10,000 in student debt for those earning less than $125,000 a year allows Biden to fulfill a campaign promise, it risks disappointing progressive allies while aggravating working-class Democrats.

It also gives Republicans an opening to claim that Biden’s move to erase billions in aggregate debt could stoke inflation.
Biden himself has been acutely aware of the political pitfalls of any debt forgiveness plan and has delayed a decision for months, peppering his advisers with requests for more information and inflation analysis.
Flashback: In March 2020 — at the beginning of the pandemic, but after it was clear he would be his party's nominee — Biden moved towards progressive proposals, like those from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), to cancel some student debt.

But his support for wiping away a “minimum” of $10,000 in student debt fell short of Warren’s $50,000 plan.
In April of this year, Biden shut the door on the bigger amount. “I’m not considering $50,000 in debt reduction,” he said in the Roosevelt room at the White House.
All year, Schumer and Warren, along with Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), have been pressing Team Biden to go big and bold on debt forgiveness.
By the numbers: Biden’s expected decision to eliminate $10,000 in debt for individuals making less than $125,000 a year would cost $30o billion, according to a new analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model.

Raising the amount to $50,000 would bump the total cost to approximately $980 billion.

The big picture: Biden has said that fighting inflation, which dropped to 8.5% in July, is his top priority. Officials across the administration are concerned about the effect of high prices on lower income Americans — not to mention the political implication for Democrats in November.

Biden has couched his $340 billion in new spending on climate and health care, paired with corporate tax increases, as an anti-inflationary bill. The White House has celebrated comments from Larry Summers, a persistent critic of Biden on inflation, that the legislation will lower costs over time.
But Summers has been sounding the alarm about the inflationary impact of debt forgiveness. “Student loan debt relief is spending that raises demand and increases inflation,” he tweeted Monday.
Zoom out: Republicans are already using Biden’s plan to argue that the Democratic Party is forsaking working-class Americans to curry favor with America’s elite.

“There's no such thing as student loan ‘forgiveness,’” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) tweeted.
“There's only transferring the debt from those who took the loans (and benefitted) to those who didn't attend college or responsibly paid off their debts.”

[Farfromgeneva]

Same topic

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-c ... iversities

Dollar amounts in these charts have not been adjusted for inflation. However, tuition and fees at four-year National Universities are significantly outpacing inflation. The total consumer price index inflation increased by around 54% from July 2001 to July 2021, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[kramerica.inc]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/president-bid ... 13539.html

[CU88]

A great step!

Biden to cancel up to $10,000 in student debt for most borrowers
The president is also cancelling up to $20,000 for Pell recipients, and is extending a pause on federal student loan payments through Dec. 31

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... cellation/