32 ms·

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 hypo

by 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.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        > 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. You arguably get greater returns by keeping your slaves, but practicing forced breeding programs (which very much existed on plantations). If you can get slaves to produce 40% more children than they would without being raped, you end up ahead in representation without giving up your slaves.
  - pcwalton 5y ago
    > 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. U.S. Const., article I, section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
    - bhupy 5y ago
      Thanks, that's another one; but again, the intention of it was to grease the wheels for the slave states to join the Union so that the institution itself may eventually be outlawed. Indeed, Jefferson's outlawing of the international slave trade went into effect on January 1, 1808, not a single day after the limit laid out in Article 1, Section 9.
      - kevinmchugh 5y ago
        I don't know anything about the history of that law but it passed the house almost unanimously and the Senate wasn't split along slave/free lines. It didn't have the effect of hurting slavery and it's conceivable the slave-state legislators thought it would boost local production (of slaves)
  - syki 5y ago
    Read Jefferson's views on usufruct and compare with his desire to maintain his estate's wealth and not free slaves for said wealth. It's hard to not think lowly of a man with such views that are backed up with such actions. Your refusal to condemn Jefferson for his actions is odd. It's not like the man was devoid of praiseworthy actions but he was no saint.
    - bhupy 5y ago
      > Your refusal to condemn Jefferson for his actions is odd. It's not like the man was devoid of praiseworthy actions but he was no saint. You're right, just to take a step back and make it absolutely clear, I definitely condemn Jefferson for his ownership of slaves. That said, I view his praiseworthy actions as sufficiently admirable as to outweigh his misdeeds, and on net I have a great deal of respect for Jefferson, warts and all. The commentary around maintaining wealth / avoiding bankruptcy is not mean to excuse the trade-off he ultimately had to make, but to make it clear that he wasn't some cartoon villain, even if I disagree with the ultimate trade-off he personally did make.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        Nobody's telling you not to respect Jefferson. Where you'll get pushback is in your attempt to say he wasn't a rank hypocrite. He obviously was.
        bhupy 5y ago
        I see, then we're not really disagreeing on much. On net, one can deeply agree with Jefferson while overlooking (or perhaps even excusing) his alleged hypocrisy, especially considering that his written word carried a lot of weight in helping to legitimize the abolitionist cause (indeed, to the chagrin of the Confederates, per the Cornerstone Speech). All I'll say in addition is that the modern day cultural effort to eradicate our Founding Fathers from our institutions (i.e. "telling [us] not to respect Jefferson") is anathema to that.
        5y ago

by syki 5y ago

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.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      > 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. You arguably get greater returns by keeping your slaves, but practicing forced breeding programs (which very much existed on plantations). If you can get slaves to produce 40% more children than they would without being raped, you end up ahead in representation without giving up your slaves.
- pcwalton 5y ago
  > 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. U.S. Const., article I, section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
  - bhupy 5y ago
    Thanks, that's another one; but again, the intention of it was to grease the wheels for the slave states to join the Union so that the institution itself may eventually be outlawed. Indeed, Jefferson's outlawing of the international slave trade went into effect on January 1, 1808, not a single day after the limit laid out in Article 1, Section 9.
    - kevinmchugh 5y ago
      I don't know anything about the history of that law but it passed the house almost unanimously and the Senate wasn't split along slave/free lines. It didn't have the effect of hurting slavery and it's conceivable the slave-state legislators thought it would boost local production (of slaves)
- syki 5y ago
  Read Jefferson's views on usufruct and compare with his desire to maintain his estate's wealth and not free slaves for said wealth. It's hard to not think lowly of a man with such views that are backed up with such actions. Your refusal to condemn Jefferson for his actions is odd. It's not like the man was devoid of praiseworthy actions but he was no saint.
  - bhupy 5y ago
    > Your refusal to condemn Jefferson for his actions is odd. It's not like the man was devoid of praiseworthy actions but he was no saint. You're right, just to take a step back and make it absolutely clear, I definitely condemn Jefferson for his ownership of slaves. That said, I view his praiseworthy actions as sufficiently admirable as to outweigh his misdeeds, and on net I have a great deal of respect for Jefferson, warts and all. The commentary around maintaining wealth / avoiding bankruptcy is not mean to excuse the trade-off he ultimately had to make, but to make it clear that he wasn't some cartoon villain, even if I disagree with the ultimate trade-off he personally did make.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Nobody's telling you not to respect Jefferson. Where you'll get pushback is in your attempt to say he wasn't a rank hypocrite. He obviously was.
      - bhupy 5y ago
        I see, then we're not really disagreeing on much. On net, one can deeply agree with Jefferson while overlooking (or perhaps even excusing) his alleged hypocrisy, especially considering that his written word carried a lot of weight in helping to legitimize the abolitionist cause (indeed, to the chagrin of the Confederates, per the Cornerstone Speech). All I'll say in addition is that the modern day cultural effort to eradicate our Founding Fathers from our institutions (i.e. "telling [us] not to respect Jefferson") is anathema to that.
        5y ago