5 ms·

I've always found it kind of lazy to criticize someone's ideals on the basis that they themselves fell short of those ideals. Isn't setting your sights on what

I've always found it kind of lazy to criticize someone's ideals on the basis that they themselves fell short of those ideals. Isn't setting your sights on what is today out of reach a critical element of progress?

UncleMeat 6y ago
In some situations, sure. In Jeffersons? He didn't just fall a little short. He fell way short in ways that both he and his contemporaries knew were monstrous. Jefferson himself wrote that it was too dangerous to support abolition, even if slavery was a moral evil. In comparison, Lincoln wrote that ending slavery was worth the total destruction of the entire wealth of the nation. Jefferson wasn't even willing to personally sacrifice. Ending slavery was absolutely within reach during Jefferson's lifetime. And he personally had the ability to free his own slaves even if broader abolition didn't come quickly. Jefferson also betrayed his own ideals by failing to support the french revolution (a revolution that was actually about granting power to the people, though it had its own problems).
- positr0n 6y ago
  When did Jefferson sour on the French Revolution? I know he helped the Marquis de Lafayette write The Declaration of the Rights of Man. Granted that was very early in the revolution, before it turned on the liberal nobles like Lafayette. Fun fact I learned from the Revolutions podcast. Lafayette was imprisoned by the Austrians after trying to escape France through enemy lines. The US learned of his situation (this was during George Washington's presidency) and granted him back pay for his service during the revolutionary war. And that is how he survived those ~5 years in an Austrian prison.
Layke1123 6y ago
But his point is exactly that those were not his ideals, but just pleasant rhetoric to invoke the action of those beneath his position to benefit him. It's not a criticism of the idea that "all men are created equal". It's a criticism of Jefferson's actual belief in said ideals.

UncleMeat 6y ago

In some situations, sure. In Jeffersons? He didn't just fall a little short. He fell way short in ways that both he and his contemporaries knew were monstrous. Jefferson himself wrote that it was too dangerous to support abolition, even if slavery was a moral evil. In comparison, Lincoln wrote that ending slavery was worth the total destruction of the entire wealth of the nation. Jefferson wasn't even willing to personally sacrifice. Ending slavery was absolutely within reach during Jefferson's lifetime. And he personally had the ability to free his own slaves even if broader abolition didn't come quickly. Jefferson also betrayed his own ideals by failing to support the french revolution (a revolution that was actually about granting power to the people, though it had its own problems).

positr0n 6y ago
When did Jefferson sour on the French Revolution? I know he helped the Marquis de Lafayette write The Declaration of the Rights of Man. Granted that was very early in the revolution, before it turned on the liberal nobles like Lafayette. Fun fact I learned from the Revolutions podcast. Lafayette was imprisoned by the Austrians after trying to escape France through enemy lines. The US learned of his situation (this was during George Washington's presidency) and granted him back pay for his service during the revolutionary war. And that is how he survived those ~5 years in an Austrian prison.

Layke1123 6y ago

But his point is exactly that those were not his ideals, but just pleasant rhetoric to invoke the action of those beneath his position to benefit him. It's not a criticism of the idea that "all men are created equal". It's a criticism of Jefferson's actual belief in said ideals.