Thomas Jefferson on kings:

[Zorra]

I was much an enemy to monarchies before I came to Europe. I am ten thousand times more so, since I have seen what they are. There is scarcely an evil known in these countries, which may not be traced to their king, as its source, nor a good, which is not derived from the small fibres of republicanism existing among them.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to General Washington, May 2, 1788

[Teaser]

1. *YAWN*

.

[Heidi]

2. Ironic, coming from a slave owner. (nt)

[Zorra]

7. Thomas Jefferson and slavery

Thomas Jefferson is often singled out for scorn by the politically correct historical revisionist crowd because of the apparent dichotomy between his public rhetoric and his personal actions. Jefferson was a slaveholder by inheritance, and he was prohibited by Virginia law from freeing them, a law he sought to overturn with his first act in the Virginia legislature. Though Monticello was deeply in debt at the time of Jefferson's death, in his will he arranged for the freedom of a number of his slaves, and as Captain Edmund Bacon, overseer at Monticello from 1806-22, noted after Jefferson's death, "I think he would have freed all of them if his affairs had not been so much involved that he could not do it."

Jefferson's actions throughout his life demonstrated an abhorrence of slavery, an institution which, he wrote, "is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other." When Jefferson was asked to pen Virginia's constitution, his first proposals included a clause stipulating that all people born on Virginia soil would be born free.

Jefferson also wrote the Ordinance of 1784, a preliminary draft of the Northwest Ordinance, which would govern the land between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River. Jefferson included in his bill a clause that would have prohibited slavery in these new territories after 1800. When this measure was blocked in Congress by just one vote, Jefferson lamented, "The voice of a single individual ... would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country. Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment!" Jefferson, certain that God's wrath would not be forever stilled, said: "We must await with patience the workings of an overruling Providence, and hope that He is preparing the deliverance of these, our suffering brethren. When the measure of their tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless a God of justice will awaken to their distress, and by diffusing light and liberality among their oppressors, or, at length, by His exterminating thunder, manifest His attention to the things of this world....

"Jefferson's magnum opus, the Declaration of Independence, was amended to strike a ringing condemnation of King George's promotion of the slave trade: "He has waged cruel war upon human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and 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 and sold, he has prostituted his for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue07/jefferson.htm

[bahrbearian]

8. Thanks ,, and thanks for link

[Kurovski]

10. +1000

Thank you.

[patrice]

12. Didn't he also fight the central bankers? Which means he knew where slavery comes from,

his own, and that of those under his SES.

[Zorra]

18. Unequal Protection: Jefferson Versus the Corporate Aristocracy

On December 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to James Madison about his concerns regarding the Constitution. He said bluntly that it was deficient in several areas:

I will now tell you what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land, and not by the laws of nations.7

http://www.truthout.org/unequal-protection-jefferson-versus-corporate-aristocracy/1303196400

Yes, Hamilton, the Federalist, and Jefferson, the Democratic Republican, did not like each other. Hamilton desperately wanted a central bank, Jefferson was flat out against it. Hamilton got his way, unfortunately.

[Teaser]

23. "I love you Sally Hemmings...Now wash my underwear. Or I'll have you beaten."

.

[Heidi]

28. Monticello.org is a bit less defensive about Jefferson's legacy, re: slavery.

"His belief in the inferiority of blacks, coupled with their presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson's emancipation scheme. These convictions were exacerbated by the bloody revolution in Haiti and an aborted rebellion of slaves and free blacks in Virginia in 1800.

While slavery remained the law of the land, Jefferson struggled to make ownership of humans compatible with the new ideas of the era of revolutions. By creating a moral and social distance between himself and enslaved people, by pushing them down the "scale of beings," he could consider himself as the "father" of "children" who needed his protection."

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

[Zorra]

30. IMO, there is/was never will be any justification for anyone to ever "own" a slave.

12 "founding fathers" owned slaves or managed slaves, including James Madison, primary author of the Constitution, and Ben Franklin.

In the world today, the concept of slavery is disgusting and horrible to most people. But it was an accepted fact of life throughout history in many places. It always makes me wonder how any reasonably decent, intelligent person could be so un-evolved as to believe that "owning" another human being was somehow morally and ethically acceptable and justifiable.

The fact that no biblical figure ever spoke against slavery is pretty distressing, since our culture is based on the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

The Christian bible is full of examples of slave ownership.

The Christian Scriptures and Slavery

Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was very much a part of life in Judea, Galilee, and in the rest of the Roman Empire during New Testament times. The practice continued in England, Canada and the rest of the English Empire until the early 19th century; it continued in the U.S. until later in the 19th century.

Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant" or "maid" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.
snip---
One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

[quinnox]

3. What a brilliant man

One of the giants of history for sure.

[Drale]

4. Maybe when the Kings actually ruled I would hate them

but the "royalty" in england are basically celebrities now. So I really don't care.

[RandomThoughts]

5. Really?

Why did they invite the 'clubs' and the Saudi Common Family to the wedding then?

They want you to think they don't use mechanism, and include the private sector robber barons now, but the thought process is the same.

It is the thought of superiority with no claim that is the issue.


The vary statement of someone being royal, or having anything for that reason is part of the problem. Since it claims some 'have' status without any defense except being born into some family line.

Furthermore using there own rules I can defeat them, and show them not royal, although I don't believe in it, and only make such statements to show them they lose the discussion in there own perspective also.


They would say they win becuase they have beer and travel money.

Do you see the difference, and why they would let the entire world end before correcting wrong, and sending the beer and travel money that is due to me, or so many other people. They would have to admit they are wrong, and that someone like me could have what they use to define winning.

Me having beer and travel money will not allow them to even argue by what they claim is first and foremost, and will crush there view of superiority.

I am fighting on their turf. And without having to make a deal to get the beer and travel money that is due.

[RandomThoughts]

13. Let me explain it again.

If you stand on a point of justice and compassion, they have to correct that, or go against justice and compassion.

Or they can get you to make a deal, or be unjust yourself. Then outside of linear time, the past action becomes just by some current wrong you do.

So when you stand on a point of justice with compassion, they try to knock you off your stand by making you unjust, or to make you cut a deal with bad, also making you unjust.

That is why there is hardship against those that stand on points of justice with compassion, since if it is corrected, it shows the entire argument of the other side wrong, and if not it forces them to fight justice and compassion (see actions of many groups that will not send beer and travel money) and from those actions shows what they are.

It forces them on a side, correct the due of beer and travel money, or go against justice and compassion.

So they smear and harass to hide what side they fighting for, and they try to harass to knock the person off there point to get them to leave and give up.

The only way they can win is to get you to stop believing the world will be, and can be, more just and compassionate.

(edit :) for the literalist.)

Justice and compassion. As posted before.

Crash Test Dummies: Superman's Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUIPlLw2ZE
(note it honors justice, even while some say it is gone so there is current condition and what should be in song)

Loreena McKennitt- Beneath a Phrygian Sky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siXe7bKt1q0

And I will be sent the beer and travel money that is due.

[Drale]

24. I still stand by the fact

that I really don't care about the British royals one way or another.

[kentuck]

6. The founder of the Democratic Party

being ridiculed and mocked by Democrats on DemocraticUnderground. The irony.

[patrice]

9. 1++++++++++ As though no one here has ever benefited from an unfair advantage over anyone else,

anywhere, anytime.

Isn't a slave someone whose labor is taken without just recompense, someone whose life is not under their own control?

Right, no one here ever benefited from anyone who meets those characteristics. :sarcasm:

[Kurovski]

14. But read post #7 , and also a good link is offered. (nt)

[patrice]

16. Yes. That is what I'm trying to suggest: Dealing with reality as it is, does not mean surrender of

one's values. There are those, like John Brown, because of their own circumstances, for whom that means war of the most overt kind and there are those who, because of their own circumstances, that means a different kind of struggle, one in which one STILL does what one can to mitigate the harm done by the negation of certain values.

[Kurovski]

22. My mistake.

Very good then. :)

[Union Scribe]

29. Wow, a slavery apologist.

I've never owned another person so no, fuck no, I'm not morally equal to a motherfucking slaveowner.

[Zorra]

15. Ronald Reagan's impact on education today

Standardized testing/accountability
A key tool for the Reagan administration to advance its education agenda was with standardized tests. In fact, rising test scores became linked to federal aid, but, according to a historical analysis of the history of American public education, the effort did not result in improvement in schools, just more testing.

By 1984, some schools started to admit that they were seeing higher dropout rates. "For the first time, we are seeing high-school dropout rates increasing," former state commissioner of education in Massachusetts, Greg Anrig, said. "Does this mean we are getting higher standards, or does the threat of tests encourage teachers just to get rid of kids who might not pass? In other words, are we having more push-outs? And doesn’t that tend to hurt minorities?"

Reagan’s second education secretary, William Bennett, continued to pursue a policy that focused on standardized testing. Bennett’s philosophy was that the department’s central role was to collect and disseminate program evaluation data. That approach sounds remarkably similar to education policy over the past decade.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/school-turnaroundsreform/how-ronald-reagan-affected-tod.html

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. The kings of his time, that he met, are now only to be found in the 3rd world.

Where they often call themselves 'President'.

European royalty have no more political power today than do any insanely rich persons. They do not 'rule'. They sort of 'preside' at most. That kind of king disappeared in Europe with the end of WW1.

That is a complaint which has outlived its time - just as the royals have.

[Odin2005]

19. He was refering to the absolutist monarchies in France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia.

By 1776 the English Monarchy was purely ceremonial.

[Lucian]

20. Yes, except that the Queen is nothing now but a figurehead.

Who do the British pay their taxes to? That's who's leading them.

[WatsonT]

21. Kings with power are terrible

Kings that are relics and have no real authority are amusement for tourists.

When the royal family starts ordering executions or declaring state religions or raising taxes I will start to be concerned.

[immoderate]

27. Uh-huh. The Royal family is a tourist attraction. Like Seaworld.

--imm

[Raine]

25. Oh wow a history lesson

:boring:

[Poboy]

26. r'd