5 ms·

I mean, it's as straightforward a characterization of Jefferson's views as it gets, and from contemporaries. I don't know about Monroe, but Jefferson was unabl

by bhupy 5y ago

I mean, it's as straightforward a characterization of Jefferson's views as it gets, and from contemporaries. I don't know about Monroe, but Jefferson was unable to free his slaves because he was deeply in debt (https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2015/07/the-debt-and-death-of-thomas-jefferson-2/ https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2015/07/the-debt-and-dea...). He was land (and slave) rich, but cash poor, and had he freed his slaves, his estate would have remained in debt. Jefferson also outlawed the international slave trade, which isn't really something one would be inclined to do if they didn't feel that slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished. Jefferson could have freed his slaves and left his estate in an irrecoverable debt for the greater cause of abolishing slavery, and at best you could argue that his unwillingness to do that constitutes some form of hypocrisy. That said, it's not at all obvious that his unwillingness to do that suggests that he _wasn't_ opposed to the institution of slavery itself, any more than a socialist/communist today that uses an iPhone is inherently a hypocrite.

syki 5y ago
So for the financial stability of his estate he kept people in bondage and yet believed that this said bondage was evil. You don't consider that a massive hypocrisy? It is extremely hypocritical especially in light of his views on usufruct.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Yeah, I mean, say what you will about the moral character of the founding documents (I think they did a pretty good job for the time, minus the slavery clauses), the question of the founders integrity isn't much in doubt! They were rank hypocrites.
  - bhupy 5y ago
    > minus the slavery clauses Which slavery clauses? In fact, the only clauses in the US Constitution that addressed slavery in any form (the Three-Fifths Compromise) were actually incentives to abolish slavery. > They were rank hypocrites Sure, I think the crux of the debate is whether or not that hypocrisy is one that can be overlooked given the context of the time, and all other deeds/actions. We're so far removed from the institution of slavery today that the tradeoff of riddling your descendants with debt by freeing slaves seems absurd (and it obviously is, in 2022), but back then it was likely a far more nuanced tradeoff. That's not to say that it's excusable — some of the Founders would have disagreed with where Jefferson ultimately came out on that trade-off — but just that it would have been far more debatable back then than it is today. My analogy with the modern anti-capitalist that chooses to be a shareholder in corporations out of necessity to participate in today's society is an attempt to draw a comparison with an institution that is seen as less clear cut by _today's_ moral standards.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      I don't think you can plausibly win your argument that the 3/5ths Compromise had the intent, let alone the effect, of abolishing slavery. But I don't have to have that argument with you, because you've forgotten about the other slavery clauses. As for the hypocrisy of the founders, you have only to reconcile their own words about the morality of slavery with their actions.
      - bhupy 5y ago
        > I don't think you can plausibly win your argument that the 3/5ths Compromise had the intent, let alone the effect, of abolishing slavery. I can try! The slave states hoped to have their slaves count has whole persons on the matter of counting the population for apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. This would have greatly increased their power without any meaningful representation for the people in question. The Three-Fifths compromise diluted the power of the slave states by only counting them as 3/5 of a Person. If the slave states wanted more seats in the House (and by extension, more power), all they had to do was free their slaves. That's the incentive. > But I don't have to have that argument with you, because you've forgotten about the other slavery clauses. Again, which slavery clauses? I'm just asking you to be specific. If it's as straightforward as you think it is, this shouldn't be hard for you. > you have only to reconcile their own words about the morality of slavery with their actions. Which society's morality? That of the 18th Century, or that of today? I think the entire point is that the morality of slavery has changed over time. Public opinion about homosexuality has dramatically changed just in the last 20 years. The morality of homophobia in the 18th century is very different from its morality today. That's the whole point. While the Founders definitely saw slavery as evil back then, it was still the status quo. The perceived wickedness of the institution even back then was very different from the perceived wickedness of the institution today. Put another way, failing to ratify the 13th Amendment in 1865 would have been really bad. Repealing the 13th Amendment today would be decidedly worse.
        tptacek 5y ago
        It's obviously not hard for me, since I've already cited an academic paper on this thread that spells this out in detail, enumerating the pro-slavery clauses. You can go read it now and we can put aside the discussion of who knew what when. Obviously, your claim that the 3/5ths Compromise is "the only clauses(sic) in the US Constitution that addressed slavery in any form" is trivially refuted --- even removing the words "in any form" from your claim, it's still false.

by bhupy 5y ago

syki 5y ago

So for the financial stability of his estate he kept people in bondage and yet believed that this said bondage was evil. You don't consider that a massive hypocrisy? It is extremely hypocritical especially in light of his views on usufruct.

tptacek 5y ago
Yeah, I mean, say what you will about the moral character of the founding documents (I think they did a pretty good job for the time, minus the slavery clauses), the question of the founders integrity isn't much in doubt! They were rank hypocrites.
- bhupy 5y ago
  > minus the slavery clauses Which slavery clauses? In fact, the only clauses in the US Constitution that addressed slavery in any form (the Three-Fifths Compromise) were actually incentives to abolish slavery. > They were rank hypocrites Sure, I think the crux of the debate is whether or not that hypocrisy is one that can be overlooked given the context of the time, and all other deeds/actions. We're so far removed from the institution of slavery today that the tradeoff of riddling your descendants with debt by freeing slaves seems absurd (and it obviously is, in 2022), but back then it was likely a far more nuanced tradeoff. That's not to say that it's excusable — some of the Founders would have disagreed with where Jefferson ultimately came out on that trade-off — but just that it would have been far more debatable back then than it is today. My analogy with the modern anti-capitalist that chooses to be a shareholder in corporations out of necessity to participate in today's society is an attempt to draw a comparison with an institution that is seen as less clear cut by _today's_ moral standards.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    I don't think you can plausibly win your argument that the 3/5ths Compromise had the intent, let alone the effect, of abolishing slavery. But I don't have to have that argument with you, because you've forgotten about the other slavery clauses. As for the hypocrisy of the founders, you have only to reconcile their own words about the morality of slavery with their actions.
    - bhupy 5y ago
      > I don't think you can plausibly win your argument that the 3/5ths Compromise had the intent, let alone the effect, of abolishing slavery. I can try! The slave states hoped to have their slaves count has whole persons on the matter of counting the population for apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. This would have greatly increased their power without any meaningful representation for the people in question. The Three-Fifths compromise diluted the power of the slave states by only counting them as 3/5 of a Person. If the slave states wanted more seats in the House (and by extension, more power), all they had to do was free their slaves. That's the incentive. > But I don't have to have that argument with you, because you've forgotten about the other slavery clauses. Again, which slavery clauses? I'm just asking you to be specific. If it's as straightforward as you think it is, this shouldn't be hard for you. > you have only to reconcile their own words about the morality of slavery with their actions. Which society's morality? That of the 18th Century, or that of today? I think the entire point is that the morality of slavery has changed over time. Public opinion about homosexuality has dramatically changed just in the last 20 years. The morality of homophobia in the 18th century is very different from its morality today. That's the whole point. While the Founders definitely saw slavery as evil back then, it was still the status quo. The perceived wickedness of the institution even back then was very different from the perceived wickedness of the institution today. Put another way, failing to ratify the 13th Amendment in 1865 would have been really bad. Repealing the 13th Amendment today would be decidedly worse.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        It's obviously not hard for me, since I've already cited an academic paper on this thread that spells this out in detail, enumerating the pro-slavery clauses. You can go read it now and we can put aside the discussion of who knew what when. Obviously, your claim that the 3/5ths Compromise is "the only clauses(sic) in the US Constitution that addressed slavery in any form" is trivially refuted --- even removing the words "in any form" from your claim, it's still false.