The Washington Post has a long piece about a Virginia family whose current (substantial but not huge) wealth derives from their slaveholding forebears and who may now be greatly enriched by the discovery of uranium under their land.
May I suggest that your judgement was a little harsh. Freeing slaves by releasing them to look after themselves is a little like animal rights activists releasing domestic pigs, chickens and cattle into the wild, only to have them become victims of dog attacks or roadkill. I understand that it was common practice in the early 1800's for enterprising citizens of the Northern States to kidnap freed slaves and transport them to states where slavery was in full swing until the end of the Civil War.
Of course, in the 21st Century we find the idea of slavery an anathema, but how sure are you that you have never purchased any item, for sale either here or in foreign countries that has some element of slave or sweated labour attached to it? Outright banning of such products may have unintended consequences for the very workers we seek to liberate. Under those circumstances we might do better to wait until we can do more for them.
This is quite wrong. There was a large population of free Blacks by 1800: the enslavers tried to stop manumission because a free Black population was seen as a threat
Jefferson was not just a cruel indifferent slave owner. His attitude was ambivalent and difficult for those of us brought up in the 20th Century to understand. While he knew in his heart that slavery was morally wrong, he was equally concerned that there was a real threat of rebellion, and equally, a great danger that the newly formed 'United States' would fracture over slave ownership. It was, as history has proved, not an idle concern, as evidenced by the slave rebellions. The high moral principles displayed by President Lincoln resulted in a bloody civil war that persists even to the present day in right-wing Republican sentiment. Jefferson also believed that the Africans were an inferior race who would struggle to govern themselves. Many of his contemporaries and still a sizeable number of white people still believe this to this day. Rather than free the Africans and expect them to live peacefully and equally among the white settlers, he thought the best solution was to return these people to Africa.
As I indicated previously, judging Jefferson by the standards of the 21st Century, 200 years later is somewhat unfair.
I'm not judging Jefferson by 21st Century standards. I condemn him by the standards of the Declaration of Independence, of which he was the principal author.
May I suggest that your judgement was a little harsh. Freeing slaves by releasing them to look after themselves is a little like animal rights activists releasing domestic pigs, chickens and cattle into the wild, only to have them become victims of dog attacks or roadkill. I understand that it was common practice in the early 1800's for enterprising citizens of the Northern States to kidnap freed slaves and transport them to states where slavery was in full swing until the end of the Civil War.
Of course, in the 21st Century we find the idea of slavery an anathema, but how sure are you that you have never purchased any item, for sale either here or in foreign countries that has some element of slave or sweated labour attached to it? Outright banning of such products may have unintended consequences for the very workers we seek to liberate. Under those circumstances we might do better to wait until we can do more for them.
This is quite wrong. There was a large population of free Blacks by 1800: the enslavers tried to stop manumission because a free Black population was seen as a threat
Jefferson was not just a cruel indifferent slave owner. His attitude was ambivalent and difficult for those of us brought up in the 20th Century to understand. While he knew in his heart that slavery was morally wrong, he was equally concerned that there was a real threat of rebellion, and equally, a great danger that the newly formed 'United States' would fracture over slave ownership. It was, as history has proved, not an idle concern, as evidenced by the slave rebellions. The high moral principles displayed by President Lincoln resulted in a bloody civil war that persists even to the present day in right-wing Republican sentiment. Jefferson also believed that the Africans were an inferior race who would struggle to govern themselves. Many of his contemporaries and still a sizeable number of white people still believe this to this day. Rather than free the Africans and expect them to live peacefully and equally among the white settlers, he thought the best solution was to return these people to Africa.
As I indicated previously, judging Jefferson by the standards of the 21st Century, 200 years later is somewhat unfair.
I'm not judging Jefferson by 21st Century standards. I condemn him by the standards of the Declaration of Independence, of which he was the principal author.
And a very unfortunate analogy, JSS. Pigs, chicken and cattle?