January 10, 2013
Thomas Jefferson Tea Party Misquote

18thcenturylove:

image

Saw this floating around Facebook - if anyone you know posts it let them know this:

“This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.”

Earliest known appearance in print: 1989”

Source: Monticello.org

LTMC: It has always shocked me how many of the very same people who claim to have their finger on the pulse of the Founding generation never fail to misquote or misattribute them on a regular basis.  The sad thing is that there are other quotations from Jefferson’s writings that arguably—emphasis on the arguably—support the proposition in question.  But why bother doing the actual research when you can just make shit up?

Related: 8 Historical Symbols That Mean The Opposite Of What You Think They Mean (See #5: Thomas Paine).

(via foundingfatherfest)

December 8, 2012
"Good God! The People of Pennsylvania in seven years will be glad to petition the Crown of Britain for reconciliation in order to be delivered from the tyranny of their new Constitution."

John Adams on the democratic, unicameral 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution that gave all male taxpayers the right to vote (via azspot)

(via azspot)

December 6, 2012
Jefferson’s Peculiar Relationship With Slavery

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a truly excellent piece on Thomas Jefferson’s relationship with slavery.  He quotes a lengthy passage of Jefferson’s reflections on the moral stain that bearing witness the slave-master relationship leaves on people (children in particular).  It’s difficult to excerpt, so this somewhat selectively emphasized passage will have to do:

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. 
This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. 
TNC explains why he believes Jefferson should not be viewed merely through the lens of his status as a slave owner:
This is just beautiful, beautiful writing reflecting a clarity of thought and understanding that I have rarely encountered in Jefferson’s contemporaries, or beyond, writing about the problem of slavery. (Frederick Douglass is my go to. But he had the “advantage” of being a slave.)  When people say Jefferson was merely a “man of his times” they sell him short. I don’t mean this as some sort of rhetorical jiu-jitsu. I find myself quoting these words when trying to explain slavery’s problems. What Jefferson, the man, did doesn’t make these words any less meaningful. 
It is sometimes a struggle to get past Jefferson’s slave-owning habits and see the beauty of his insights into the moral depravity of the Peculiar Institution.  Indeed, it is difficult to take Jefferson seriously when, having written about the corrupting effect that slavery has on the morals of people who witness it, he continues to indulge in the institution despite himself.  It is particularly difficult when one looks into the actual nuts and bolts of Jefferson’s operation, wherein children as young as 10 and 11 were regularly whipped to force them to work at Jefferson’s Monticello Plantation.  This is also the same Jefferson who said:
Brought from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, [black people] are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves, and are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising young. In the mean time they are pests in society by their idleness, and the depredations to which this leads them.

This is hard to read, and even harder to ignore when evaluating Jefferson’s legacy. Still, TNC is right: few people before or after Jefferson have described the moral problem of slavery as eloquently as Jefferson did.  That’s probably why it’s so frustrating that in the second half of Jefferson’s life, he devoted substantial effort to ensuring that he could continue to profit from slavery; delegating the necessary cruelties to his subordinates so he didn’t have to bear witness to the “unremitting despotism” and “degrading submissions” that so troubled him earlier in life.  In a way, Jefferson was living, breathing proof of his own thesis: by the time he’d grown old, his moral fiber was indeed corrupted by the institution of slavery.  An institution that he once railed against as “execrable commerce” became his greatest source of wealth.  It’s hard to say whether this represents tragedy or simply craven hypocrisy.  I suspect that the answer is a little of both.

August 8, 2012
"Critics of every social insurance proposal in the U.S., including recent health care reform, have called them socialist attacks on private property. To be sure, social insurance is a central pillar of social democracy, and social democratic parties originated in a socialist critique of capitalism. Yet the equation of social insurance with socialism is doubly ironic. The first realistic proposal to abolish poverty by means of universal social insurance was Thomas Paine, who explicitly advanced his scheme as a defense of private property against socialist revolutionaries. And the first actual social insurance scheme was introduced by Otto von Bismarck, who advanced it against the German Social Democratic Party, which opposed his plan."

Elizabeth Anderson, “Tom Paine and the Ironies of Social Democracy.”

July 4, 2012
Cracked.com: 5 Reasons Why The Founding Fathers Were Kind Of Dicks

For your Fourth of July enjoyment, a list of reasons why our cultural beatification of the Founders is not what it’s “cracked” up to be (hehehe).

My favorite from the list:

#3. The Colonists Blundered Britain into the French and Indian War

Say you have a friend, who’s kind of a loud-mouth. He’s a few years younger than you and infinitely more irritating, so much so that he pissed off some tougher, bigger kids. Now they want to kick his ass. Even though it’s your friend’s own fault, and even though you had nothing to do with the dispute, you still feel like you have to step in and fight on his behalf. The French and Indian War was sort of like that, except Great Britain was the older, sensible friend of the idiot colonists, and the French “bullies” knew a shitload of Indians.

But Why?

The land known as the Ohio Country was perfect for fur trading. The French realized this, so they claimed it. The British colony of Virginia claimed it “second,” which is English for first. Great Britain didn’t care too much and France wasn’t terribly interested in putting up a big fight over what clearly must have just been a misunderstanding. The colonists were, objectively, wrong. To apologize for the misunderstanding, the Virginian colonists started sprinting to the territory in order to gobble up land, take advantage of the fur trade, and annoy the living crap out of the Native Americans.

The French, hilariously thinking this conflict was still in the “words” phase, sent a bunch of troops on a peace mission into the forest to see if absolutely anyone in Virginia was in charge (nope!) A nearby colonial militia spotted the French, and being young, dumb, and full of guns, they thought it’d be real neat to sneak up and yell “SURPRISE!” With their guns.

Now, the French are fine if you’re running around saying “Nuh uh, we own the land,” but if you start wrecking their shit? They’re going to have something to say which, in this case, involved recruiting a buttload of Indians and an even bigger buttload of bullets. Regardless of the outcome, the ensuing French and Indian war ended up being ridiculously expensive for the British who, remember, didn’t even really give a crap to begin with.

On top of this, the British colonial smugglers continued to sell stuff to the French illegally throughout the course of the war. This kept the French well-supplied and the British well-supplied with rage at the colonists who, (once again), refused to pay taxes.
We are a nation of smugglers, war profiteers, and instigators.  Happy Fourth!

October 5, 2011
Socially Awesome Jefferson

foundingfatherfest:

Thomas Jefferson certainly knew how to handle people. (Descriptions like this are part of why I seriously doubt the idea that Jefferson had Asperger’s or the like)

At his usual dinner parties the company seldom or ever exceeded fourteen, including himself and his secretary. The invitations were not given promiscuously, or as has been done of late years, alphabetically, but his guests were generally selected in reference to their tastes, habits and suitability in all respects, which atten tion had a wonderful effect in making his parties more agreeable, than dinner parties usually are; this limited number prevented the company’s forming little knots and carrying on in undertones separate conversations, a custom so common and almost unavoidable in a large party.

At Mr. Jefferson’s table the conversation was general; every guest was entertained and interested in whatever topic was discussed. To each an opportunity was offered for the exercise of his coloquial powers and the stream of conversation thus enriched by such various contributions flowed on full, free and animated: of course he took the lead and gave the tone, with a tact so true and discriminating that he seldom missed his aim, which was to draw forth the talents and information of each and all of his guests and to place every one in an advantageous light and by being pleased with themselves, be enabled to please others. Did he perceive any one individual silent and unattended to, he would make him the object of his peculiar attention and in a manner apparently the most undesigning would draw him into notice and make him a participator in the general conversation.

One instance will be given, which will better illustrate this trait in Mr. Jefferson’s manners of presiding at his table, than any verbal description. On an occasion when the company was composed of several distinguished persons and the conversation earnest and animated, one individual remained silent and unnoticed; he had just arrived from Europe, where he had so long been a resident, that on his return he felt himself a stranger in his own country and was totally unknown to the present company. After, seemingly, without design led the conversation to the desired point, Mr. Jefferson turning to this individual said, “To you Mr. C, we are indebted to this benefit, no one more deserves the gratitude of his country.” Every eye was turned on the hitherto unobserved guest, who honestly looked as much astonished as any one in the company.

The President continued, “Yes, Sir, the upland rice which you sent from Algiers, and which thus far succeeds, will, when generally adopted by the planters, prove an inestimable blessing to our Southern states.” At once, Mr. C. who had been a mere cypher in this intelligent circle, became a person of importance and took a large share in the conversation that ensued.

March 25, 2011
"The government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and major social transformations to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and individual rights we hold as fundamental today."

— Thurgood Marshall RE: The Founding Fathers (via stefenrshort)

(via stefenrshort-deactivated2011112)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »