Said slavery was an evil institution

hating pharmaceutical companies while using their products is not the same thing, it would be more like being the CEO of a pharmaceutical company rallying against them

>says that the greatest danger to the future of this country is miscegenation
>has 6 children with his black slave

Don't think too hard about Jefferson's personal life. His ideals, however much they influenced the course of US history, were not something he lived up to.

People do the same thing with Caesar, Napolean, Hitler, etc

>The South, which continued to remain an agriculture-dominated economy, along with its sense of aristocracy, went against the Founding Fathers intentions

Kek

It was against Virginia Law to free slaves IIRC

>AD 2017
>still posting historical myths as facts
ISHYGDDT

Living up to your ideals is overrated provided you can still get the morons to follow them anyway.

Jefferson was ahead of the times. Nobody practices what they preach in 2017.

money.

slaves, espcially after the ban on importing new ones, were expensive. like buying a tractor or a CNC mill is for a modern person.

yet they paid off if you put them to work doing cash crops for export or you didn't want to pay European people to be your servants.

Jefferson even kept his illegitimate children and grand children as slaves.

Black pussy was made for BWC
Jefferson knew this

>Nobody practices what they preach in 2017.
Singer does.

No he doesn't.

>seriously, what the fuck?
There's nothing to "get". He was a hypocrite, plain and simple. A genius, sure, and maybe even in possession of the self-awareness to know that he is one. His definition of freedom was the same as the ancient Greek's definition: his own personal freedom or, as Lenin put it, freedom for the slave-owners. Everyone else can just get back to work.

As much as he may have wanted to free his slaves and not live off of stolen labor, he knew that doing so would drive his family into destitution. For all of his lofty principles, they had a way of melting away in the face of hard reality, and part of that is what made him such an effective president: He spent his entire life railing against the concentration of central authority and encroaching government power until HE became the central authority, and governed as a very strong president, one of the most effective in American history. Again, it's sort of like saying that everybody should be looking out for number 1, but then reminding them that you are number 1, and everyone else should adjust their behavior accordingly

Thomas Jeffferson was not the CEO of slavery.

Yes, he does. He remarkably does so, even. (Which is why I mentioned him, of course.)

But he makes an apt point.

It's not like Jefferson was some drunk railing against fucking negros and then going and banging one in a brothel, Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and in an age where most Americans were voluntarily freeing their slaves after their death, Jefferson did no.

Jefferson and his entire family lived off of stolen labor, period. It was theft on an institutionalized scale. Jefferson knew that deep down it was morally wrong, but he couldn't face the hard reality of having to give up his class privileges in order to live in greater accordance with his so-called principles.

No, he doesn't. Enjoy being conned by yet another public speaker.

Robert E Lee was the same, but he freed his slaves in 1862

You think that he's lying when he says that he donates half his pay? That'd be a very easy to disprove and completely ruining his reputation lie then.

What if instead of saying nothing, you point out why his claim is wrong? You know... argue.

Robert E. Lee was a true man of principle, and I say that as a damn proud Yankee who enjoys triggering all the lost causers with pictures of William Sherman.

Lee was opposed to slavery AND secession. The reason he marched to war with the south was because he considered Virginia his home, and other Virginians his countrymen.

CSA President Davis was opposed to secession also.

It's like the retards back home did something. So you get sucked into it to make sure things don't get any worse.

>muh state's rights
>form federal government immediately

lol

Thats because he thought black people as livestock and not people.

Don't hate the player, hate the game

The Supreme Court certainly doesn't.

That being said, I think there would be a lot less kowtowing to original intent if against it were in the habit of putting forward actual arguments. It would also help if the people bitching about the "flaws in the constitution" weren't transparently obsessed with banning firearms.

How are those mutually exclusive?

Welcome to (((Civic nationalism))). Our republic is built on a 250 year old Constitution. Every interest group appropriates the founding fathers to strengthen their cause and reinterpret what the founders "really meant".

Raped slaves too.

I don't see why you criticize civic nationalism for that. The same happens in countries having ethnic nationalism instead.

>"really meant"
>" "
You've never read a bit about methodology of law, have you? Interpretation is inevitable.

I can honestly say I trust the intensions of the FFs a whole hell of a lot more than the shit weasels dominating the US government today. Ironically the FFs actually wanted to build a functional republic that would endure. Modern politicians just want to loot America's corpse if they get the chance. Why the hell should I ever trust them to alter shit?

There's a difference between interpretative and reinterpretation

There isn't. You're already subject to a fundamental misconception of what interpretation even is.

I think Thomas Paine's Common Sense should be required reading in civics classes. It's not the be all and end all of what the founding fathers thought, but it's a damn good starting point because it has a lot of arguments that people at the time found compelling.

As it is schools aren't even teaching the preamble, constitution, bill of rights, or declaration that thoroughly anymore. Pretty easy for interest groups to appropriate the founders' philosophy and arguments when most people haven't even read the core bits desu

I second this. People don't know the basics of America or the value of what we have anymore. No wonder we're all so blase and easily manipulated.

>No you're just wrong

So are we just going to play patty cake for the rest of the thread or are you ever going to elaborate on whatever it is that you're going on about.

Just think about it this way
Ron Paul is against the federal reserve right?
He still has a wallet full of dollaz, right?

You're against child labor right?

So why are you using/purchasing (insert X child labor manufactured product or commodity here)?

Being a perfect person is hard, and it was especially hard in the 1700s.

>fedorafags have been telling me about Thomas "Amazing Atheist" Paine all my life
>finally sit down and read Common Sense
>nigga starts quoting the fucking bible to back up his claims

Many people struggle with the former NECESSITY of slavery in the world. Ever since the agricultural revolution, where you had landowners, it was necessary to have people work the fields. And people that didn't own lands had to sell themselves to someone so they can survive and eat. Add to that the nature of the wars that occurred.

What should be looked down upon is the TREATMENT of slaves. However, the CONCEPT of slavery is JUSTIFIED through ancient history. Of course, in our modern world, we don't need slavery anymore.

>projecting modern values where they don't belong
Slavery only began to get abolished in 1807 in Britain user, and was only really in effect from 1833. Nobody is going to argue that jefferson was perfect but it's pretty easy to hold past societies to modern expectations to shit on them.

>posting atheian acropolis
you know the greeks were a massive slaver society as well, you gonna shit on democracy too?

You can work a field without being a slave, you know. You could be a serf, you could be hired, you could work it as a family.

>being a serf was much better than being a slave
highly debatable depending on the time and place

Explain in detail the differences between living on a Virginia plantation with a benevolent master in the late 1700s and being a serf on the Lord's manor in 1100s England.

(Pro tip: you can't)

I suggest you read more into it. The ancient world isn't so nice where people afford the luxury of a 9 to 5 with weekends off.

There is a reason why slavery was a main economic component in the old world.

The choice was having slaves or having no way of paying his considerable debt
it's a tough decision, man.

>complaining about christfagging
>while posting Bob the tomato
user-kun...

I'm not saying you have to agree with Common Sense, just that it's a good window into the mindset of the American Revolution

>Nobody is going to argue that jefferson was perfect but it's pretty easy to hold past societies to modern expectations to shit on them.
Different user but the hypocrisy of saying all men are free but keeping slaves wasn't lost on the founding fathers, most justified it by saying something along the lines of "Yeah its shitty but it's convenient and we don't wanna give it up"

>The ancient world isn't so
But could it have been? He talks about "necessity of slavery" and bases it on the mere existence of slavery.

If there hadn't been slavery, maybe economic models would've developed faster that didn't require slavery?

The vast majority of ancient societies used slaves, but that doesn't mean that they had to.

Doesn't change a single thing about what I said tho.

>muh hypocrisy
literally everywhere in history, big boohoo. Our current era is just as full of it.

Have you read Aristotle's justification for slavery in politics and the nicomachean ethics?

Opposing something for how it is practiced is not the same as opposing something absolutely. The difference between a fair slaveowner and an unfair one has always been acknowledged, and the fact is it's the same thing as with bosses.

The idea it's morally necessary to abolish it to be human was largely rhetoric even in Victorian Britain.

If you were there and said this to a slaveowner, if they did so it would be like admitting they were bad masters.

>maybe economic models would've developed faster that didn't require slavery?
Then why industrialisation didn't develop at the end of the paleolithic? Oh wait, that's because the agrarian model was still THE main model all the way til enough surplus was produced for the subsumed classes to develop viable alternatives. You had to have the agricultural revolution first before the industrial revolution even took off.

Oh everything you said is still true, yeah, was just pointing the fact out, it's not new at all. Just that the FF were aware of it completely.

Damn kids not holding my values!

>Slavery only began to get abolished in 1807 in Britain user, and was only really in effect from 1833. Nobody is going to argue that jefferson was perfect but it's pretty easy to hold past societies to modern expectations to shit on them.

The first state to outlaw slavery was Pennsylvania in 1780.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1500.E2.80.931700_.28Early_Modern.29
They fucking knew slavery was wrong. From the beginning there were people opposed to it, but it made others so rich and powerful that they forced society to tolerate it far longer than it otherwise would have.

>you know the greeks were a massive slaver society as well, you gonna shit on democracy too?
The way that the Athenians practiced democracy was bloated, schizophrenic, and ineffective. If you want somebody to cure you of a disease you go see an educated doctor, you hire an educated engineer to design your buildings, and you hope that the lawyer representing you in your case is up to speed on the laws of his jurisdiction. In the same way, in order for a citizenry to choose good leaders, they need to be educated into knowing the difference between a good one and a bad one.

A democratic society which lacks an educational apparatus is the worst kind of mob rule, as exemplified by Athens, itself. When your citizens aren't qualified to be electing candidates because nobody taught them to distinguish a good one from a bad one, or how to spot lies and logical inconsistencies, they're far, far more susceptible to the honeyed words of demagogues, comedians, and grifters.

An educated population is a far more effective insurance for free society than arms

Well then there isn't much to say. Hypocrisy and economic convenience go hand in hand. On the other hand, that does not undo the good that is someone has also produced. It's just a bitter pill to take, to accept that our models were not perfect men. Only undergrads and retards think otherwise.

I'm not complaining, I was just shocked by the blantant bible thumping by a supposed "anti-religious" founding father.

>The South, which continued to remain an agriculture-dominated economy, along with its sense of aristocracy, went against the Founding Fathers intentions,
No. Southern society was the closest to that which Jefferson intentioned. As was the southern model of the federal government until the civil war.

I'm not talking about the industrialization, just about agrarian models where free people work the fields.

Wasn't this actually a thing in Scandinavia during the Middle Ages, where freeholders rather than serfs were the dominant agrarian workers?

>The first state to outlaw slavery was Pennsylvania in 1780
It was not outlawing slavery at all.

>The 1780 Act prohibited further importation of slaves into Pennsylvania, but it also respected the property rights of Pennsylvania slaveholders by not freeing slaves already held in the state. It changed the legal status of future children born to enslaved Pennsylvania mothers from "slave" to "indentured servant", but required those children to work for the mother's master until age 28.

Basically doing what britain slowly began doing ever since the 1772 somerset case. Gradually redefining slavery, then outlawing the trading, then outright outlawing the ownership. And it took quite sometime to do it across the british empire. Sixty or so years from 1772 to 1833. And then it took the tripartite agreement of 1847 (iirc) with other european superpowers like france and germany to spread it across the globe. The ottomans nominally adopted it in the late 19th century but the practice continued nonetheless.

Point isn't that they knew it was wrong, it's more that it took until the industrial revolution (basically a way out of it) for it to effectively materialise.

>The way that the Athenians practiced democracy was bloated, schizophrenic, and ineffective
>ineffective
Where are you getting this rubbish from? It was highly effective. Slaves in athens (not gonna talk about the other poleis like the helots of sparta) covered a wide range of functions. They worked in the fields, they worked in the oikos, they worked as "techne" (apprentices) in workshops, they worked in thracian and laurium silver mines, the educated ones worked as minor civil servants in the acropolis and the less educated were also performing city civic work (waste management, construction, etc). Nicias loaned 2000 slaves to the city to help maintain the city during the peloponnesian war.

A lot of the surplus produced by the slave-caste is precisely what allowed Athens (and other poleis) to flourish

No idea about scandinavia, not familiar with their history past the point where the vikangz got christianised and stopped raiding (and coincidentally getting slaves). Could be so, but that'd be the exception to the rule if they did. There might have been economic reasons as to why it was better to have freemen working the land, I can't argue with you on that one because I know jackshit about nordcucks.

However I do know serfdom was the preferred model in England, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc, etc during that period. Until industrialisation kicked in, then working the land did not produce the same level of wealth as letting the flow of labor go towards the cities.

>A democratic society which lacks an educational apparatus is the worst kind of mob rule, as exemplified by Athens, itself. When your citizens aren't qualified to be electing candidates because nobody taught them to distinguish a good one from a bad one, or how to spot lies and logical inconsistencies, they're far, far more susceptible to the honeyed words of demagogues, comedians, and grifters.
Was not gonna reply to this but there is so much wrong with this I got to.

Are you familiar at all with the greek concept of "schole"? The closest translation we have is "free time", but it is very misleading. It used to signify "time AWAY from labor", and it was the purpose of all athenian citizens to get as much Schole as possible in order to partake in citizen activities as much as possible. You gotta realise that the greek democratic system was a lot more basic and limited than ours, going to the ekklesia (the assembly) or the dikasteria (the courts) took a lot of time, therefore the more slaves (and therefore wealth) you had, the more time you could pass indulging in Schole. Which is coincidentally the same work from which we derived school and our modern understanding of education. You couldn't hire and learn philosophy, rhetoric or eristics from a sophist if you didn't have the time or money to do so. Performing manual labor came to be perceived as extremely demeaning by the time of classical greece (480-330BC).

Note it wasn't always the case if we go by Hesiod's "work and days", which almost reads like a eulogy to farmers (and made sense considering he was talking to the greek of the archaic period when the oikos was everything).
>working is not a reproach, nut not to work is a reproach
>to plough a field as fast and as straight as as good as any other king
So there was indeed a time where labor itself wasn't seen as badly, but it was much before democracy, before draco and solon and cleisthenes. Before, well, everything we love about greeks.

People were absolutely not freeing their slaves regularly after death. Maybe one or two bastard sons, and the odd slave that's too sick to work and they don't want to bother feeding or providing care. Slaves were enormously valuable. They were the equivalent of buying a brand new entry level automobile today.

>Point isn't that they knew it was wrong, it's more that it took until the industrial revolution (basically a way out of it) for it to effectively materialise.
Nonsense. Slavery is a legal arrangement that a society chooses to make. Plenty of agrarian societies existed which weren't slave-owning or feudal states, and the most effective ones were the ones built upon free labor. But even today slavery exists, so you can't say that technology alone makes it go away.

Technology doesn't make human ills like slavery go away, technology is just a tool and a reflection of the people using it: in the wrong hands it can be used to make slavery monstrously more effective and easy to get away with, just like what happened when the cotton gin was introduced.

>Where are you getting this rubbish from? It was highly effective.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition

The Athenians were the Soviet Union of their day: they talked a big game about freedom and liberty, but in practice they bled their own allies dry to pay for extravagant public works projects in their own city, faced chronic rebellions (though perhaps at a slightly better rate than despotisms), pissed off all of their neighbors continuously, and died when they ran out of other people's money. While it left a really impressive corpse, later societies built upon the Athenian model, ironing out the deficiencies and in fact strengthening the democratic aspect by incorporating lessons learned from monarchies like Sparta and oligarchies like Corinth.

>A lot of the surplus produced by the slave-caste is precisely what allowed Athens (and other poleis) to flourish
And also probably played a key role in explaining why their main body of citizenry was in a near constant state of population decline.

>Are you familiar at all with the greek concept of "schole"? The closest translation we have is "free time", but it is very misleading. It used to signify "time AWAY from labor", and it was the purpose of all athenian citizens to get as much Schole as possible in order to partake in citizen activities as much as possible.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers"

The privileged Athenian class had plenty of leisure time to devote to promoting the civic health of the city, but realistically speaking they were probably spending a greater portion of their day pounding the boipucci they had chained to their bed, and standing on a street corner getting into political squabbles with his neighbors.

What was lacking from Athenian democracy was an educated population which had the "training" to determine effective rulers from shameless demagogues. An uneducated population is a mob which more often than not chooses shitty rulers, and when that's happening it often becomes more efficient to dispense with the charade of liberty and just have your society be a naked, but honest despotism.

Remember, Athens is the place that put to death one of Western civilization's most important thinkers, simply because they thought he was "corrupting the youth"

>Wasn't this actually a thing in Scandinavia during the Middle Ages, where freeholders rather than serfs were the dominant agrarian workers?

Not really. Not exactly. Every landlord had a few poorfags to help around, and said poorfags didn't have much choice in the matter, and did not get much more than just board & bed

>Plenty of agrarian societies existed which weren't slave-owning or feudal states, and the most effective ones were the ones built upon free labor.
Not saying I don't believe you, but mind listing me a few? Literally all the big empires employed some sort of slavery, serfdom or indentured bondage.

>But even today slavery exists, so you can't say that technology alone makes it go away.
It still exists in the societies that aren't fully developed and seek to cut corners like the asian sweatshops. The more automation there is, the more skilled the labor needs to be, the lesser the need for enslaved pleb labor.

>in the wrong hands it can be used to make slavery monstrously more effective
Not arguing that slavery isn't a horrible practice so not gonna disagree with you thers.

>sicilian expedition
what has the peloponnesian war got to do with slavery? It was the alcibiadea tard who ignored pericles advice to fight a defensive war and abide from expansionism. But retard alcibiades wanted to help segesta who was having problems with syracuse and believed the gold meme. Nicias who was a massive slaveowner argued all the fucking time against it, even when he was sent up there.

>delian league was the ussr
that just makea no sense. It was an athenian empire originally set to protect the greeks against persians but it eventually fell under athenian influence - and then pericles replaced Cimon as head honcho and there was the whole 464BC mt ithome helot rebellion debacle with sparta which built up the hostilities between both poleis.

>sparta as a monarchy
Gross oversimplification. There is nothing quite like the spartiate system in history. You want to talk about declining citizen population struggling to hold control? Then you must look to sparta first. Thats the whole reason they'd only do 40days long raids in attica before going back home. They feared the messenians would revolt if they stayed away too long.

The same reason they fetishize a fucking piece of paper. Americans are mentally ill.

>but realistically speaking they were probably spending a greater portion of their day pounding the boipucci
More memes. Pederasty was essentially an upper class activity only the aristoi families would indulge in. They didnt bang peasants. A good example would be the tyrannicides aristogeiton and harmodius. Or Alexander and Pelopidas.

>Remember, Athens is the place that put to death one of Western civilization's most important thinkers, simply because they thought he was "corrupting the youth"
Yet more memes. Socrates trial was basically a political trial disguised as a religious one. They were pissed at him because he was arguing for a technocracy while the athenian democracy was still reeling from the peloponnesian defeat, and they were pissed one of his student, Critias, was one of the more violent members of the 30 tyrant oligarchy put in place by sparta.
The fact socrates believed he had a personal daemon and received enthiusasmos (divine possession) outside of religious festivals was the cherry on top which made it east to pin him down.

>What was lacking from Athenian democracy was an educated population which had the "training" to determine effective rulers from shameless demagogues
Just a diatribe. I already explained sophists werw the main educators in Greece, whether in Athens, Corinth, Thebes or Miletus. Socrates was different in that respect that he didn't charge for his lessons but if you look at his students...all were aristoi kids. Schole was how things were done back then. Yeah it sucks that public education wasn't available in 400BC. Where exactly are you going with this aside from wishful thinking?

>Not saying I don't believe you, but mind listing me a few? Literally all the big empires employed some sort of slavery, serfdom or indentured bondage.
The question is not if they did, the question is what proportion of their economy was affected by it. A Roman around the time of the Punic Wars owned his own farm and could supply his own equipment, was probably a 4th or 5th generation immigrant, and from this proportionately large middle class of property owners, Rome could draw from a massive and ever growing reservoir of soldiers, far more than any of the Hellenic or North African city states could dream of mustering. By the time of the Principate, the Roman was far more likely to be working urban poor, dependent upon the state dole in order to feed himself, while most of the actual labor was preformed by slaves. The Republic was not only sustainable, it was massively growing. The Principate was Roman society in its ossified state.

>It still exists in the societies that aren't fully developed and seek to cut corners like the asian sweatshops. The more automation there is, the more skilled the labor needs to be, the lesser the need for enslaved pleb labor.
It exists today even in "free" countries; it's called mass incarceration. There's still plenty of demand for dirt cheap labor.

>what has the peloponnesian war got to do with slavery?
The classic example of how Athenian democracy was prone to truly massive and needless fuck ups

> It was an athenian empire originally set to protect the greeks against persians
And eventually turned into a tributary empire when the Persian threat receded

>Gross oversimplification.
I admit, the Spartan model was nuanced, and they struggled with population decline even more severely than Athens did.

But one thing that they could do well with a powerful executive branch of government is formulate a cohesive strategic vision and stick to that vision even in the face of setbacks while presenting a united diplomatic front.

>More memes.
The point is that just because these Greeks had leisure time didn't necessarily make them good citizens.

>Socrates trial was basically a political trial disguised as a religious one.
and exactly the kind of thing that happens when uneducated rubes decide who the leaders of society get to be.

> I already explained sophists werw the main educators in Greece,
A:education in ancient Greece was present, but it was not rigorous. It was mostly competing schools of ideologies rather than what we now consider education.
B:they were not spread widely enough over the population.

>Yeah it sucks that public education wasn't available in 400BC. Where exactly are you going with this aside from wishful thinking?
Fight my ass off and go donate and volunteer when some partisan stooge in 2017 CE wants to cut funding for public schools in order to pay for some rich asshole's tax cut.

The purpose of history is not just the rote memorization of various piles of rubble, it's to learn from the mistakes of people who were just like you and me in virtually every single way, either for follies of their own making or from the mere circumstances of their environment.

classic case of "do what i say, not what i do"

>rome
lmao, Republican rome was even more stingy with its citizenship than the athenians. With athenians, you had citizenship, metics and then slaves. Romans had so many fucking tiers of citizenships. You had the full blown civitas, you had civitas sine suffragio, you had ius latii, you had double colonies, you had municipiums, you ha civitates foederate. What the romans were really good at was dangling citizenship or "upgrades" status to the colonies in order to get them to follow suit. And romans still had the patrician/plebeian/freemen/slave system; even if the new nobilitas post 367BC with lex hortensia fixed a lot of the original imbalances.

Also you are comparing an actual empire model to a city state. Wtf dude?

>mass incarceration
thats just retarded. Slaves did no get trial. You are shaming the memory of the melians with that shit. Read some more thucydides.

>was prone to truly massive and needless fuck ups
You're basically refuting none of my points. Fair enough.

>And eventually turned into a tributary empire when the Persian threat receded
The payment of phoros was always part of the deal. Athens was the fleet masters of the hellenic league. I already said they did turn it into a pseudo-athenian empire. Even Pericles admitted it. You're saying nothing new.

>But one thing that they could do well with a powerful executive branch of government is formulate a cohesive strategic vision and stick to that vision even in the face of setbacks while presenting a united diplomatic front.
lmao, they got btfo by the thebans because they depended purely on the helots and all epaminondas had to do was liberate them and give arcadia megalopolis to permanently destroy them after their leuctra defeat. Did not even touch sparta.

>The point is that just because these Greeks had leisure time didn't necessarily make them good citizens.
And yet we are all basing our democratic models on theirs. And hellenization revolutionised the entire mediterranean sphere.

>and exactly the kind of thing that happens when uneducated rubes decide who the leaders of society get to be.
So you're ignoring the role of critias in the whole deal? It's like talking to a wall here.

>A:education in ancient Greece was present, but it was not rigorous. It was mostly competing schools of ideologies rather than what we now consider education.
Give me dates and names motherfucker, you speak a lot yet say almost nothing.

>Fight my ass off and go donate and volunteer when some partisan stooge in 2017 CE wants to cut funding for public schools in order to pay for some rich asshole's tax cut.
So you have no argument and switched the topic from 400BC to 2017AD? Topkek.

Gonna stop giving you (You)'s because it's painfully obvious you know jackshit.

...

>you gonna shit on democracy too?
He should, Democracy is a shit-tier form of government.

When Jefferson was 23 he was in the Virginia State Legislature. He introduced a bill to gradually end slavery in the state. In was a carefully laid out plan that would avoid what he believed was the main objection to ending slavery, namely economic hardship on current slaveowners. He thought after it worked it would serve as model legislation for other states.

He moved to bring it up for voting and a friend of his seconded it. They were the only two members to vote yes. The next bill introduced said that if Thomas Jefferson freed or manumitted any of his slaves they would immediately become the property of the State of Virginia. It also placed restrictions on his moving them out of state. There were only 2 no votes. This had a profound effect on Jefferson, so go easy on calling him names like hypocrite.

> He introduced a bill to gradually end slavery in the state
Name of that bill? I'm curious.

Sorry, I am on the road and posted from memory. I am sure he was 23 so how many bills could he have authored that year? Best I can do.

It's true. No other people revere a piece of legislation this much. It's basically a religion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion

It's almost like a total lack of education in an area leads to endemic neglect. Or what, does your particular political stripe feed off that ignorance?

Thomas Jefferson didn't oppose slavery, he just opposed other people being allowed to own slaves.

Who cares about the universal rights of man when the rent's due next week?

guy was nothing but contradictions

they werent slaves but a anarcho-primitive collective working in free association with the man

jesus christ op read a fucking book before you spam up these forums

>Hamilton agrees with the British on every realm of government and political philosophy, to the point where he's rightfully derided as an Anglophile
>joins the American revolution

This, servants are different than slaves.

Atheists, once again, taking history out of context.

not like being an Anglophile exempts you from "Muh Freedoms"

In fact with Magna Carta, English Civil war, and the later dominions of Canada and Australia one can say that's the anglo's calling card

Ah yes, the magna carta extending rights to the commoners; and the English civil war protecting religious minorities and giving a good name to republicanism.

the purposeful dissintergration of the meaning of language must be like tenet 1 of the dystopic manifesto

>spits