Thomas Jefferson Responds to a Request to Abolish Slavery

[@chriskelly929]

Mr. Coddington: As a high school history teacher, thank you for bringing this forward. I am going to use it as well as other primary documents I already have to present the complicated and nuanced position that Jefferson took on this issue over time.

[@gordonsheaffer1863]

Jefferson was more adamant in the 18th century, and the Virginia where Coles was educated was largely the work of Jefferson. Prosser's rebellion changed many of the laws in the Commonwealth, especially the manumission process. Coles was forced to free his slaves in the territories.

[@jake1776]

Exactly- there really was a nuanced approach to address a very complicated moral problem.

[@jacobhollar8849]

I’ve always been impressed by Jefferson’s intellect. He has clear vision of reality also. He knew this was a very complex issue with multiple variables, economic, moral.

[@pjmlegrande]

Impressive in many ways, but considered by some of his founder-colleagues as occasionally impenetrable and given to devious maneuvering. He certainly was not above very hardball politicking, yet managed to remain unsoiled by the poisonous nature of the early Republic’s very nasty party politics. He was a hypocrite by any fair standard, it cannot be denied. But sometimes those esteemed by history as great have some great failings. As much as I admire his astounding accomplishments, for me he ultimately leaves a bad taste.

[@MrRAGE-md5rj]

@@pjmlegrande If you put every historical figure on a pedestal, they'll always fall off, eventually.

[@dresqueda]

It is amazing to hear these words from Thomas Jefferson. Thank you for your constant provision of noteworthy information!

[@sbgroen]

I still have mixed feelings about Thomas Jefferson. Until you read his letter, I had always looked at him with scorn for keeping slaves until his death. Apart from his beautifully descriptive and efficient writing, he offered something that I hadn't considered: whether it was better to free slaves, which was against the law, and have them returned to slavery by another holder once set free or to treat them humanly, like a conservator toward his conservatee, and let the passage of time lead to a stronger, gradual consensus for change. This letter certainly requires reconsideration of his actions regarding his own slaves in the context of the era in which he lived. Thanks very much for sharing it.

[@brad9092]

I had never seen the letter either. It does show Jeffersons understanding of the predicament. One cannot say that the one, and only reason for slavery existence as long as it did, was greed. Many truly feared what would happen if these uneducated and in some cases criminal, people were set free on society. They had a lot to consider.

[@Rollin_L]

I can't be more specific offhand, but there are statements on the record from George Washington of a similar nature. These men didn't want to retain slavery, but they knew it would take many years for the public to change its sentiments on the subject, as well as that the slaves truly were not prepared for what they would face. It's all very tragic, and all too easy to color our view with our 21st century sensibilities. There were realities that we tend to ignore, but that were foremost on the minds of men like Jefferson and Washington. Another thing, if you are not already aware, is that Jefferson wrote a scathing condemnation of the slave trade and pointedly placed the blame for it on the English King and his ilk that, not only instituted it in the colonies, but profited from it. He calls out the King for then having the nerve to offer colonial slaves their freedom if they fight for the crown against the Continental Army. This statement is preserved in a draft of the Declaration of Independence. Sadly, two of the thirteen colonies refused to accept the Declaration with that language. It would have been the seed required to eliminate slavery from the start, or at least early in the new Republic. But all thirteen had to be in agreement or the Revolution itself would be doomed. Honestly, it's pretty remarkable that eleven colonies were ready to agree to that. We were not so evil as some like to pretend!

[@brad9092]

@@Rollin_L But we often are held captive to tradition or custom and no amount of paddling upstream will change the boats course.

[@Stoney1959]

History must always be judged in the context of the period of time the incident/event took place. I feel more confident today that white will finally put up a defense toward the demonizing of their 'group' i.e. white Christian males.

[@lonniemonroe2714]

​@@Rollin_LRace baiters like Al Sharpton & the even worse Barack Obama keep the lie going & the hate stirred up

[@DavidWatson-pw7xt]

Jefferson foresaw the disastrous consequences of emancipating more than a million people suddenly and without adequate preparation for such emancipation. How that preparation should have been implemented is a matter for historians to debate, but once again Jefferson demonstrates the Genius of the Founding Fathers.

[@michaelschneider8656]

Thank you for bringing this knowledge to us. 🙏

[@alanaadams7440]

The founding Fathers knew about the slavery problem. They just formed a nation different from any country in the world. That was a huge task

[@emmgeevideo]

Am I the only one who clicks on the thumbnail for this channel in my KZbin feed and immediately says to himself, "Hey all..."?

[@StevenVanOver]

Always appreciated.

[@jude999]

"We have the wolf by the ears, we can neither hold on or safely let go." The Civil War proved him correct. We cannot be grateful enough for the Foundation he gave for us, and the ideal he set for the rest of the world for all time.

[@WalterKing-f2h]

Yeah right Lincoln hated Thomas Jefferson when the South seceded they preached his state rights argument even his grandson who served in the Confederate army say that his heart always belong to Virginia first and like that old saying for someone that hated slavery Jefferson sure did love it!!!

[@dougfrench8231]

​@@WalterKing-f2h Did you not hear what he wrote ?

[@derrickturner7163]

The effort to perpetuate slavery by those who thought the black people less than human ultimately ended slavery; Hallaluah to the name of Jesus!

[@downtownbrown50]

​@@WalterKing-f2hand you have evidence of this? I think not.

[@cecilhorsley2409]

What if and we all know that it would just be an idea. But if the slave owners had freed the offsprings of the slaves instead of keeping them as slaves. Paying them a wage and educating the children of slaves, what do you suppose the outcome would have been?

[@garrettz72]

Thank you for this.

[@jamestregler1584]

I'm a Jeffersonion and have read his papers from stem to Stern and I find him a great Man !

[@bookman7409]

Though not a perfect man, by any stretch. This, of course, is endemic to "great" people, so it's no criticism to say so. Jefferson's views appear misguided, from here in the future, but at the time, his views were a bit radical, and maybe too radical for him to talk about openly. You can talk about how he shouldn't have cared about offending his neighbors, but that ignores the fact that speaking openly in favor of emancipation very much could have ended with those neighbors putting his properties to the torch. There would be no aid, no insurance that would bring him back from such ruination, and no way of preventing it from happening again. His only option would've been to sell slaves, who may have wound up under a harsh, cruel owner, and that wouldn't help him a bit. Cassius M Clay, on the other paw, was the sort of young man Jefferson talked about, and was also an absolute badass - and his abolitionist views meant that people tried to kill him, repeatedly, not only to shut him up, but in the case of the last two men he killed, they were more likely bent on taking revenge on him for his part in abolition, since the war was long over, by then. Kinda puts Jefferson in a different light, doesn't it?

[@jamestregler1584]

@@bookman7409 not really Jefferson's intellectual vision for America was yeaomen middle class self reliant people ! 😇

[@bookman7409]

@@jamestregler1584 I said nothing about that, but he certainly wasn't the ravening slaver that many make him out to be, these days. And it's also true that he was a thoughtful man, but one whose thinking was governed by his era. I also didn't say it, because I didn't think it necessary, but I like Tom, and he did a lot of good for our nation. Been a nice conversation, at any rate.

[@bookman7409]

@@jamestregler1584 That doesn't mean his Ideal was workable, though. ;)

[@markusbroyles1884]

Several of the decendents of the founding fathers spent much of their inheritance establishing an alternative colony in Africa they called Liberia and they spent their fortunes repatriating so many of their former slaves to this country prior to the civil war. The Trannsfered slaves immediately enslaved the local population and built themselves mansions and plantations just like they had in the south. The climate in Liberia was so tropical that these mansions were all rotting away in short order and their efforts quickly became trampled under the stampede of time into poverty and chaos. Apparently even the educated slaves were beset with criminal ambitions toward their fellow man and had not the heart to become any semblance of "Utopia"

[@MrRAGE-md5rj]

You got proof? Otherwise, that's like saying "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" was a documentary.

[@ozzyphil74]

So if your story is true, you're effectively saying people who were abused sometimes turn into abusers... No way Jose... What great insight

[@pbr4814]

As a student of the American Civil War, I am always interested in ALL of the events that led up to it. Human greed knows no bounds and southern plantation owners, unwilling to transition from a slave-based to a free man/paid economic model, brought on their own destruction.

[@donaldlewis2506]

Your evaluation is limited and echoes the court historians whose job it is to ward off true understanding that would threaten the power base of the actual villains of the story who have been lying in word and deed ever since 1861.

[@jason60chev]

WOuld like to see what you would do, if you were of the Landed Gentry/Aristocracy in the Antebellum South. Would YOU willingly lessen your wealth, lifestyle and wherewithal? Jefferson mentions in his response that there were laws that would not allow slave holders to just free their slaves. As bad/wrong as it was, it was LEGAL (Not that that means it was right). Past societies CANNOT be judged using contemporary ideas, thoughts not reasonings.

[@lonniemonroe2714]

You need to dig deeper & study harder. A comment reply before you laid it all out perfectly. And..the plantation owners were all Democrats. Been mad at Republicans for freeing their slaves since 1865

[@lonniemonroe2714]

​@@donaldlewis2506Thank you. Yes He is drinking the kool-aide

[@donaldlewis2506]

@@jason60chev Quite so. Presentism is a very poor filter to understand history. The problem then as now is that the black population was not a monolith. Some WERE capable of being constructive and industrious free citizens while others would be less so. This is no different from any other human population except in the raw numbers involved. What this means is that in a society built by and for a population with average IQ of 100 those operating at a standard deviation below will naturally struggle to prosper without assistance. If I were a planter at that time it would depend on what crop I was growing as to what the labour force would be. Soil depletion via nitrogen stripping was poorly understood and to gain yields more and more land had to be placed under cultivation. Land that was depleted had to be pastured or fallowed to get the nutrients back in. Lack of mechanization was a handicap also but soon to be negated. It is a no win scenario that was created by the dumping of blacks into the colonies. They WERE NOT WANTED but the Crown and the Jew partnered in trafficking of human chattel to make a lot of money. They IGNORED the pleas of the colonists and imposed black on them against their will. This caused serious problems. As to what the implications were and the problems inherent in confronting them I may suggest referencing the speech given by Henry Clay in the Senate in 1832 regarding Abolition Petitions, He addressed the difficulties and dangers of the realities of an enslaved peoples presence in a country that did not want them.

[@host_theghost507]

Thank you, as always, for tracking down these illuminating sources. As my college history professor put it, "If you want to know what they thought, read what they wrote." Jefferson is one of those people you have to approach carefully-he's got an incredibly subtle mind, and I admire him for so many reasons that it's difficult to confront him on this issue. Unfortunately, his writings on race make for painful reading. He "scientifically" determined that Black people required less sleep, felt less grief or physical pain, that they were incapable of forethought or even spiritual love. "Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows," he wrote, "but not poetry." Poetry required the ability to love, which he believed did not rise above the level of physical desire among his human property. He mused that Blacks might be a different species than whites, and that it might be to their benefit to mix their blood with that of whites-but that freedom would prevent such "improvement." I guess he know what he was talking about. Viewed in this light-and there is no indication that his views changed with age-his writings on gradual emancipation seemed to be based on the faulty assumption that Black people could not simply be left to their own devices: whites had a "duty" to manage them. If the Civil War and Reconstruction proved anything, it was that Black Americans were far better prepared to live as free citizens than even some white abolitionists assumed. They served with distinction in the military, became independent farmers, learned trades, set up in the professions, sought education, raised families, traveled, and voted. Reconstruction was killed not because it had failed but because it was working too well to suit the postbellum planter class. It threatened to expose the lie that slavery was this "tiger" that one dare not let go of, or that slavery was somehow of benefit to the enslaved. We still hear those falsehoods today. Gradual emancipation had been tried in the North, and it "worked" in the sense that it gave white slaveowners time to find new sources of income. What it did not do was compensate the slaves for labor that had been extracted from them by force. While allowing children to be born free, it also condemned their parents to die slaves. It seems to me a good illustration that slavery was not exclusively a southern problem but a national disgrace.

[@lonniemonroe2714]

Another 21st century spin on a 18th & 19th century problem. Never fails. Never ceases to amaze me. The mindset then was wayyy different than today. And never is there any mention of the over 3000 black slave owners who owned over 12,000 slaves. Or that the 5 civilized tribes owned slaves. Especially the Cherokee. Who by the way were the last Confederate army in the field to surrender to Federal forces. Led by Cherokee General Stand Waitie.

[@host_theghost507]

@@lonniemonroe2714 I'm not spinning, I'm quoting. It's literally what Jefferson wrote. To call this presentism implies that it wasn't possible for someone to have a more enlightened view of race relations in the 18th and 19th centuries, which obviously isn't true. Since slavery began in America there have been people who knew it was wrong. Jefferson's old friends John and Abigail Adams were ardent abolitionists. John said the American Revolution would not be complete until all slaves were freed and Abigail organized a trade school for free Black children. Abolitionists might have been few in number but ultimately they prevailed. As for who owned slaves... most of the slaves owned by free Blacks were relatives who had been bought because it was the only way to keep them together. But even if some of them did own slaves to abuse them, it doesn't change the morality of the situation. Slavery wasn't a "mindset," it was a crime.

[@larrydemaar409]

Jefferson had a good idea. Pick a date and then babies born after that date would be free. That might have worked.

[@jude999]

Not for Southerner slave owners. That would be stealing private property.

[@larrydemaar409]

@@jude999 They would not lose anything. They would keep their slaves. It would be gradual. The southern slave owner did not pay for that baby. It would be like buying a car from a dealer and expect getting the new model for free. It might have saved a war and a lot of casualties on both sides.

[@richdobbs6595]

That was done in a number of northern states. Another approach, done in English colonies, was to compensate the slave owners for the "property".

[@hesedken]

Why hasn't it worked with emancipation of white males from Affirmative Action?

[@lonniemonroe2714]

​@@jude999Those old..and modern Democrats sure love their slaves

[@brianniegemann4788]

Thanks to Ron for this episode, and to all those who wrote very thoughtful, even better than usual comments. The "question of slavery" goes to the heart of the causes of the Civil War. One little-known fact about it is that cotton grown by slaves had a very low profit margin. Southern planters proclaimed "Cotton is King" and the most valuable product in the world, but the cost of feeding, clothing, housing and guarding slaves, and making payments on them, was almost as high as simply hiring them. And the slavers knew this, despite their claims to the contrary. What puzzles me is why nobody ever proposed freeing the slaves and paying them to grow the crops. Even Jefferson doesn't seem to have thought of it. But that's more or less what happened after the war.

[@l4c390]

The cotton pre-dominate economy of the South would have failed on its own in the late 1860s as the Suez Canal and rail made cotton from Egypt cheaper than slave produced and cross Atlantic shipped cotton from the US.

[@brianniegemann4788]

@@l4c390 Good point about the Panama (and Suez) canals. Slavery was doomed to fail in any case because it was a backward system that discouraged manufacturing, development and pretty much all forms of progress. If there had been no war, the North would have completely eclipsed the South in 50 years. Thanks for your comment.

[@l4c390]

@@brianniegemann4788 The South by itself was the fourth or fifth most industrialized "country" in the world in 1861. Likely the new rich winners in the manufacturing sector would have picked up the pieces had that happened, and there possible wouldn't have been as large a black migration to the northern cities as the jobs were close to home.

[@brianniegemann4788]

@@l4c390 that's interesting, l didn't know it ranked that high. Wikipedia says Britain, France, Belgium and United States. Since the subject here is what to do with the freed slaves, hiring them as workers in Northern-owned factories would make sense. Thousands of blacks migrated north in the 1920s to do just that. Good comment .

[@brianredmon378]

In 1888, slavery had been abolished.

[@alanaadams7440]

Slavery was outlawed in 1803 in NY but it wasn't enforced very well

[@DANIELHOUY]

This demonstrates that there were concerned individuals that realized the consequences allowing the institution of slavery to expand and flourish. The unwillingness of those who could have made a difference then, as it was in later years, was rooted in the selfish ego, and greed of the slaveholders.

[@silverstar4289]

A very flowery “punt”

[@johnt.kennedy3856]

Very well said.

[@peterblum613]

Some great comments to this video. But ultimately, as this comment suggests, it is pretty simple: Jefferson was full of it. Ben Franklin’s evolution on the subject is much more straightforward and impressive.

[@markmaki4460]

He was an attorney first, after all.

[@Valicroix]

It's hard for us looking back to understand how complicated people found the issue of slavery. Even many that conceded the evil of the institution didn't think that an immediate across the board emancipation was going to work. Many were convinced that the freed slaves would have to be "expatriated" somewhere. Abraham Lincoln proposed shipping the ex-slaves to Central America, the Caribbean or Africa.

[@johnbiteme9118]

Thank you for making this video about Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Edward Coles. It is important for people to be aware of this information and to understand it in historical context, rather than the current common practice of superimposing modern ideas, attitudes and realities onto a time in the past when those ideas, attitudes and realities were rare and sometimes did not exist at all. I would like to mention a few things about this letter that, I believe, were not covered in your video. At the time the letter was written (1814), Thomas Jefferson had finished a 40 year career in public service and had retired from public life. He was 71 years old, at a time when the average life expectancy was around 65. He explains that several times in the past he tried to eliminate slavery, or at least take steps towards its eventual elimination, but each time the effort failed - in at least one case it failed miserably. Jefferson says that his influence with the current generation of politicians is not sufficient to make any worthwhile progress on the subject of slavery and also states that as a (retired) weak, old man he does not have the abilities or the strength and endurance that would be required to achieve a positive result. The reference to Priam and the armor of Hector is pretty clearly implying that Jefferson believes if he gets involved at this time, he will fail and the cause will be lost. I especially disagree with the statement at approx. 14:00 of the video where you say, “…he”, (Jefferson), “wouldn’t lift a hand to make it happen.” Throughout a large portion of the letter, Jefferson is clearly giving Coles advice on how to influence other politicians and gives him ideas and arguments Coles can use to help towards that result. Jefferson even gives a trial proposal of emancipating all persons born after a certain date as a possible argument to use to forward the cause of emancipation - along with other stipulations that politicians at the time might tend to agree with. In my opinion, Thomas Jefferson was one of the earliest US politicians to champion the cause of emancipation, to the extent he was able, given the attitudes of other politicians he had to work with and the constraints of society at the time. No, he was not a full-time, all-out abolitionist, but given his professional responsibilities over a lifetime of public service and understanding that he was involved in a large number of very important issues; when the issue of slavery came up, (or was brought up by him), he did everything within his knowledge, experience and ability to try and move society towards eliminating the practice of slavery. Anyway, thank you again for making this video. I think that the more people today know and understand about historical people in the past, the less likely they are to pass intolerant, prejudicial, and frequently inaccurate ideas on to others.

[@michaelbayer5094]

Generally, I try to read history in the context of its time and try to understand events as the they were caused by preceding events. However, I must disagree with your assertion of "superimposing modern ideas" in regard to Jefferson and slavery. In 1775, in Philadelphia, the year Jefferson arrives there, the first anti-slavery society is founded. In the Continental Congress slavery was debated. The Confederation Congress was able to ban slavery in the Nortwest Terr.. New states like PA and DE abolished slavery in the 1780's. People at the time were abolitionist. No revisionist history inserted. At the very least, slavery continued in the South because men like Jefferson were greedy.

[@garylane6227]

@@michaelbayer5094 You claim you are not inserting modern sensibilities and then end by claiming Jefferson was greedy. Do you have anything to back up your claim?

[@michaelbayer5094]

@@garylane6227 As I point out, opposition to slavery was a political movement in Jefferson's time. Condemnation of greed is also not a modern sensibility. As for Jefferson's greed, he was a slave owner. His wealth, life-style, education, and social standing were all a result of his ownership of other human beings. Despite describing himself as "yeoman farmer", enslaved people worked the land and maintained his estates so he could live the life of a gentleman. If wringing your bread from the sweat of other men's faces is not greed. then I don't know what is.

[@garylane6227]

​@@michaelbayer5094 So every person who makes any money off the labor of others is greedy? Stop judging the past by modern day sensibilities. In two hundred years the more enlightened people of the future may look back and say "their society allowed the murder of almost a million unique unborn humans every year. How depraved and primitive they were!".

[@infantinofan]

Jefferson seems to think that an organization to abolish slavery in a rather new thing, but "Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade" was founded in 1787 in London and was active until 1807. Both Anglicans and Quakers were founders of the group and in America there was strong sentiment for Abolition among the Quakers since 1688.

[@aguy559]

Are you from the mid Atlantic region?

[@CAROLUSPRIMA]

This notion among thinking Southern men that slavery was a bad thing but impossible to fix was common in Jefferson’s time. But by the time of the Civil War it had morphed into the idea that slavery was a positive good, especially for the slaves.

[@avenaoat]

Calhoun changed the common opinion the slavery system to be good in the South. Calhoun was the first strong seccessionist in the South. His effect was collossial wrong, because the seccession idea became live power after his death. If the Southern people had held the negative common opinion about slavery system as Thomas Jefferson had known the Southern slavery system expansion idea would have been minimal and the South could have accepted the new territories after the Mexican American War to be free. I think the slavery system expansion coused the Civil War as the ROOT CASE. Bleeding Kansas!

[@khankrum1]

Perhaps Jefferson had the foresight to see what is happening today!

[@ozzyphil74]

What is happening today?

[@wbriggs111]

I liked what Abraham Lincoln said so eloquently, I would not like to be a slave. What happened in the north ,when slavery was abolished, was the slave owners sold off their slaves to where it was legal to own slaves and it was much worse conditions that they were in.

[@owensomers8572]

Slavery wasn't "abolished" in the North, it was outlawed over time in most states. In no small part this movement was precipitated by Elizabeth Freeman's lawsuit in Massachusetts in 1781. Were there cases where slave owners sold slaves South to avoid losing them? Yes, this is documented, but it was by no means a majority of cases. An unfortunate ripple effect of the Freeman lawsuit was that states that were favorable to the continuation (and expansion) of slavery began passing onerous laws stripping negroes of what few rights they had, or could be granted. It is unfortunate that Jefferson chose not to address this legal trend in his letter, but rather states how legislation should be passed to improve the negroes condition, and "protect" them.

[@avenaoat]

@@owensomers8572 New Jersey was the last, but I think Delaware would have been the next with the 1.4% slaves (in 1860) about 1870. EAST Virginia was not only slave work economy area but slave people breeding factory to sell humans to the cotton plantation Deep South states (and Texas). Between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings perhaps would have been true love but a foreigner does not understend why did not free their common children with together their mother? I understand that time a marriage would have been problem or impossible but for his children the freedom?

[@owensomers8572]

@@avenaoat I don't agree with the position, but I wouldn't be surprised if Jefferson's rationale was that he was "improving the stock", in preparation of eventual emancipation of "diluted" negroes. There was a common perception in the United States, even among many abolitionists, that "mixed race" blacks were more better prepared for emancipation than "dark" skinned blacks, I find this attitude to be reflected in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and other contemporary literature. Unfortunately, these stereotyped tropes continue to flourish.

[@JonJaeden]

Slavery as a legal institution was abolished, North and South, in December 1865 when the 13th Amendment became the law of the land. Despite pesky Southerners being absent from Congress for nearly four years, the Northern legislative body did not get around to addressing emancipation until two months before Lee surrendered. The last previous attempt by Congress to address slavery had been the original 13th Amendment -- the Corwin Amendment of 1861 -- meant to woo the first seven seceding states back into the Union. Endorsed by Lincoln in his first inaugural address, it guaranteed slavery in the Southern states in perpetuity and prevented Congress from interfering with the institution. FWIW, the 1860 census shows more free blacks in the states shortly to form the Confederacy than in their northern counterparts.

[@melvinhunt6976]

I’m amazed that we are so concerned with something that has been dead and gone in America for a very long time. I’m 76 years old and my problem is that our government has spent Trillions of dollars to get rid of poverty, exclusively for black people ! They have had more opportunities for success than l have, but just look around! We have created a problem of Entitlement! People believe because they are of a particular race that they are Better than the people who Work and pay for whatever they have. Not all of course but the masses are just dependent and people who work and they somehow believe they deserve it! We have paid reparations for most of my life in housing allowance, welfare, etc, snd yet they want more . Jefferson and his ideas were from a different time in history and he wasn’t incorrect at the time . That’s a problem we have, that we believe we can judge different cultures and think for people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago! Just look back now and l believe we were all better off in the 50-60s ! The media has divided us as people and country. America is about to be destroyed, thanks to Obama and Biden, who both live to destroy the greatest nation ever on earth. People can get along just fine by not having some people who work for the media/government telling us how much we hate each other. I don’t hate anyone and know that lm no better than anyone, but behavior is the key, and some people do behave better than others!

[@markmaki4460]

The more someone gives you, the more he owns you.

[@infochannel392]

As I understand it he had children with his slave, Sally Hemings. And then allowed those children to serve him as slaves, is this true? What father could do that to their children?

[@johnmanier9047]

It was a story circulated by James Callender, a political enemy of Jefferson. The DNA testing in 1998 said that there was a “strong likelihood” but it could not prove 100% that he and Sally Hemings had children. It’s up for debate

[@CAROLUSPRIMA]

As I understand it (to use your thoughtful qualifier) Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister and they looked very much alike. I say this because I am rather certain that some of these offspring passed as white. I think he freed all his children but of this I’m less certain. I’m sure that someone reading this knows the entire story. I recall a time when it was pretty big news that TJ had a slave for a mistress. But I’m old.

[@johnt.kennedy3856]

Before his first was born, when she was pregnant, and while in France; where she could have been freed, he made a deal with her they would be freed when they turn 21. He made them slaves, all four of them, and never freed her.

[@CAROLUSPRIMA]

@@johnt.kennedy3856 Oh yes. I remember something about that now. Thanks.

[@ozzyphil74]

He obviously was a racist, as were many of that time seeing black people as lesser beings incapable of acting like men... Whatever that means. His letter even alludes to that.

[@charlesrobinson9881]

At one point, he says, as I heard it, that the “law does not permit us to free them“. I have never heard this before. If true it would be a Virginia law rather than a federal law. It would help to explain the contradiction between the expressed opinions of Jefferson and Washington, that the slaves should be freed ,and their own failure to free their own slaves. Did I hear it correctly?

[@libeloussmith7656]

.... it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,...

[@davidcorsi4665]

Jefferson is brilliant at saying nothing when he wants to. Like a good country lawyer he shifts blame and uses his age as an excuse. BTW, This channel is fantastic.

[@garylane6227]

He said quite a bit or were you not paying attention?

[@davidcorsi4665]

Ok, exactly what do you think he said of substance in his response?

[@garylane6227]

@@davidcorsi4665 Pay me for my time and I'll explain it to you.

[@patrickdean4853]

I believe the seed had been planted particularly in Virginia, that slavery needed to come to an end; however, Northern Abolitionists stirred up so much trouble that the public turned against the idea. Yea for the Abolitionists tactic.

[@FuzzyWuzzy75]

Slavery could have ended peacefully. Southern plantation owners, with their wealth and affluence, did not want to give up their slaves peacefully. Wealthy affluent and radical abolitionists in the North had little patience for peaceful solutions to ending slavery. Those who were not wealthy and affluent in both North and South were stirred into a frenzy of animosity towards one another by rabble rousers from their bully pulpits and on the street corners and in news papers. They were both told, "We are right, and they are wrong! God loves us, and God hates them!" Northerners were stirred into a frenzy over preserving the Union. Southerners were stirred into a frenzy over state's rights and even a 2nd American Revolution. And people on both sides were promised a fairly quick and easy bloodless victory before hostilities truly got under way. The American Civil War is just one more sad example from history of how a war is much easier to start than to end.

[@donaldlewis2506]

Many southern politicians were from the upper classes (same as now) and they were wealthy cash crop planters. Naturally they were apprehensive about losing free labour. Another factor was the vitriolic libel and slander coming from Yankee abolition groups. They were actively trying to spark a race war in the South and this made the Southerners VERY angry. They did NOT want their countries to turn into Haiti and experience another genocide as happened in 1804. Many Southerners believed that just freeing the blacks outright and turning them loose would be a disaster for ALL concerned. Unprepared illiterate destitute unskilled blacks roaming the country trying to survive would be catastrophic and would produce chaos. They wanted gradual manumission and compensation. Blacks prepared for citizenship would be a net positive as unprepared they would be a liability. Slavery was NOT the cause of the war. Had it been the reason for secession all the Southern states could have simply stayed in and voted YES to the Corwin Amendment up for a vote in the 61 session and that would have placed slavery outside of DCs purview forever. They didn't. They left and that is because the secession was over economic plundering of the South by a faction of Yankees via the Protectionist Tariffs. 75% if federal revenues were collected in Southern states and 75% of government largess was distributed to Northern states. Preserving the Union was a dodge. It was a con job covering the auto-coup being executed by the Republican Party to suborn and overthrow the Republic founded in 1789 and transform the Voluntary Union into a Compulsory Union with most power concentrated in DC. The purpose of the war was consolidation and the gutting of Federalism. The Republican Party was historically ANTI Union and ANTI Constitution and only became Anti Secession when it became apparent that the Free Trade South would bankrupt the Protectionist North with its 10% Tariff opposing the 50% Morrill Tariff. All foreign trade would head south to avoid the Northern Tariff and that would collapse the Yankee Economies. Their Southern Milch Cow had escaped the Barn and they resolved to beat it senseless and drag it back in by force. This is the actual cause of the War which the Yankee Tyranny in DC would keep you ignorant of for fear that you would see the slave shackles you have inherited from the blacks. Today the Tyranny is across the board and everyone is a slave.

[@mmm091000]

@@donaldlewis2506 yep it’s more complex than people think ! Absolutely well said ! 👏🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@jamestregler1584]

Summed the American civil war perfectly , thanks from old New t😇

[@jamestregler1584]

England ended it with money and rightly so !

[@georgesheffield1580]

And the modern Oligarchs still don't want to give up anything to labor or to anything else .

[@jamesalanstephensmith7930]

From what I understand, he let four go free. They all had trades, one being a carpenter. Supposedly after his wife died, he took on a common law wife, one of his slaves! Doesn’t that speak volumes about his affection for them? He has many descendants by her, many! Look at the impending slavery today, financial! Competitive and aggressive capitalists leave no room for prosperity. Medical/pharmaceutical, the banks and the military make laws I wouldn’t have approved of or voted for. Cash is on the chopping block. NINE BILLION DOLLARS for Medica lobbyists! How many Americans could have benefited from that money? No peace since the eighties! How much have Chaney and his ilk made from incessant war? And MORE on the horizon? Did we not get the message from 911? What good is rehashing the past when our present and who knows what future comes from a previously free society now run by militants who have infused their influence into every last facet of our society? Our churches! Cameras everywhere and following people around using your phone? Weaponizing the IRS? Eleven intelligence agencies and they STILL couldn’t protect Congress! Madness! What would Jefferson say about our present state of affairs? “When the people are sufficiently educated, they shall govern themselves”

[@linzierogers5024]

Inherited enslaved people in 1888? Wasn't slavery illegal in 1888?

[@alansewell7810]

Jefferson famously kept slavery from coming into the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin by requesting that Virginia's Legislature --- which acquired the land we now know as The Midwest during the Revolution --- cede the land to the United States government under condition that slavery never be permitted there, thereby abolishing the French version of slavery in the Illinois Country, and preventing the American version of it from moving northward of the Ohio River. Jefferson later authored the Ordinances of 1784 and 1787 passed by the Confederation Congress that abolished slavery there forever. Jefferson failed by one vote in the Confederate Congress from prohibiting slavery from spreading into the Southern territories beyond Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. If Jefferson had not acted to prohibit slavery from taking root in the Midwest, Illinois and Indiana would have entered the Union as Slave States, tipping the national balance toward slavery. Jefferson did more than any single Founder to keep slavery from taking hold in the bulk of the country. Abraham Lincoln mentioned him profusely in his anti-slavery speeches and writing.

[@avenaoat]

Jefferson wrote this in extrem foggy, but you are right the letter contained: 1. Jefferson did not like slavery. Perhaps he loved Sally Hemings truely and he wrote all people are equal and he thought to be right untill his death. He mentioned the USA and United Kingdom forbade the slave trade together under his presidency, (he did something!). 2. Jefferson thought the near future would bring emancipation, but that time he thought it was impossible. 3. The most foggy was that part of his letter when he mentioned the bloody end of the slavery he mentioned Santo Domingo (=Haiti). Jefferson wanted peacful time in Virginia so he wrote extrem foggy because Cole could have showed others this letter and direct sentences could have brought gales or tornadoes. However I do not understand why he did not free his children and their mother and his lover?

[@JT-rx1eo]

Didn't he say it was currently illegal to free them?

[@avenaoat]

@@JT-rx1eo Whasington freed his slaves. In the border states the free exslaves were big crow as in Delaware, where 14-15 times more exslaves lived than than the 1.6% slaves or Maryland where the free exslaves were almost similar number people as the 12.5% slaves. I do not know exactly, but I read somewhere Jefferson had big debs so he could not free his lover and his children. Slaves were property in the South!

[@markmaki4460]

Jefferson liked the labor which slaves were obliged to provide for him, therefore, he liked slavery. He disliked certain parts of slavery, but as long as he prospered through the obligatory labor of others, it cannot be said that he altogether 'did not like' slavery. And i guess Washington broke a law or two when he freed his slaves? Or maybe it was only permitted to free slaves upon the death of their owner.

[@avenaoat]

@@markmaki4460 All right he used the not his relative slaves for work, but the problem why Jefferson did not free his kids after his death?

[@markmaki4460]

@@avenaoat I understand his finances were in terrible shape at his death. Also, perhaps he genuinely thought them safest enslaved. The paternalistic attitude was quite a thing, and even usually sincere i think, especially among the very elderly plantation owners.

[@oldgeezerproductions]

For all his brilliance and skill with language, it is my opinion that Jefferson's weakness lay in his lack of understanding and appreciation of the power of wealth, its control of opinion and politics and especially the powerful effect that scientific and technological progress and sophistication has on a civilization. I'm sure Jefferson could not have foretold how a relatively simple invention would vastly transform his region of the United States. If the progress of technology could have somehow been frozen and the Cotton Engine (AKA "Cotten Gin") had not been engineered into existence, then, as in Europe (Spain, France, England, Etc.) and most of North America too (North US, Mexico and Canada) slavery could have and would have died out in ALL parts of North America. BUT, and it is a huge but, the Cotton Engine made Cotton King and now great wealth was extended to a powerful and ruthless few, but ONLY IF they could control a vast workforce of ultra cheap human labor. To keep their ownership of this workforce, the rich and powerful of the South kept up a steady drumbeat of propaganda in their "Fire-Eater Press" (equivalent to today's AM Talk Radio and Faux Noise), wherein THEY portrayed themselves as the unjustly oppressed. Yes, it was not the slaves who were portrayed so, it was the wealthy slave owners who were "terribly oppressed," had their "gentlemanly 'honor' insulted" and their morality and Christianity "impeached" by those mean, hurtful, nasty, hateful and dastardly abolitionists in the enemy North. The wealthy, politically powerful and socially influential few of the South were so deeply offended that they were justified in starting a war "to protect their peculiar institution" -- oh were they really?!? Don't you believe it, the wealthy few who depend on slave labor, forcibly enlisting the totally deluded (today we'd call "brainwashed") poor "Whites" of the South to do the fighting, it was they who would not and (to preserve their wealth) could not EVER end slavery. Since they held the reigns of power, wealth and social influence, slavery would not end until "every drop of blood drawn the lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword." No, Jefferson had no idea how no idea how strong slavery would grow.

[@brianniegemann4788]

You, sir, are right on the money. Because slavery was all about money, power and influence. Thanks for your comment.

[@downtownbrown50]

​@@brianniegemann4788 I don't believe a word of it. Slavery would have ended as soon as technology moved forward sufficiently so that mechanical cotton picker took the place of slaves. Tractors would take the place of horses, and slaves would have been a thing of the past.

[@avenaoat]

Unfortunataly the UK began the diversification of the raw cotton production only in 1858. Did London think about a Civil War in 1858? (British consulats began to give free of charge cotton seeds in the port cities of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, after the North Indian revolt India became crown colony and the first step was to increase the raw cotton production in 1858!) India, Egypt, Ottoman Empire, Brasil and a lot of smaller new raw cotton producers entered to the market by 1864. In Europe the most countries began to produce sugar from free peasant cultivated sugar beet (France became the World biggest sugar producer from sugar beet by 1830!) so a cotton diversification would have been possibilty 30 years earlier so the Deep South Cotton King economy would have been smaller power. BTW the TRAGEDY OF THE SOUTH was the diversification of the raw cotton market by 1864 decreased the cotton price so the Southern economy income became low after the Civil War. This was the next tragedy for the exslaves and whites alike after the bloody war. A diversificated cotton market from1830 it could have helped a better possibility for peacful abolution ideas..............perhaps.

[@donaldlewis2506]

Jefferson had already come out against slavery long before and had nearly wrecked his career fighting it. He had grown wary of dying on a hill the country was not quite prepared to stand on yet. His diatribe in the Declaration had been stricken from the document for political and economic reasons based on the perceived untimeliness of his recommendation. It was felt that including this condemnation would foster abolition and that would harm the war effort. "He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." Jefferson 1776 First Draft Declaration of Independence.

[@fightheslavepower-wo6pc]

These comments from 1814 show no advance in Jefferson's thinking from the views he stated in Notes on Virginia from 1784? Gradual emancipation combined with deportation of the freed slaves, and their replacement with (presumably white) free laborers obtained from some imaginary source. To be fair, this is similar to the program for ending slavery actually followed by New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, which he was no doubt aware of. But in those states slavery was not the foundation of the economy, and enslaved people were less than 1% of the population. In Virginia they were more like 40% of the population, and slave labor was definitely the foundation of the economy. The best you can say about Jefferson is that in his "firebell in the night" and "wolf by the ears" comments he did see the looming disaster that the continued existence of slavery represented. The failure to solve the problem of slavery in American life still haunts us today.

[@DavidMcdonald-df8tb]

It only haunts people that want to focus on it.

[@DavidMcdonald-df8tb]

He could have just paid them for their work. They would have produced more and he could then show others that capitalism is better than socialism

[@Tveach-p7o]

Thomas jefferson was NOT the author of the Declaration of Indepence ! He contributed as did many others . Jefferson as a junior deligete was the scribe .

[@jameshaxby5434]

Like liberal Politicians today, he just talked in circles and didn't really say or do anything about the issue.

[@Razorbacks1]

Give me a break.

[@brianniegemann4788]

And like conservative politicians today, the southern judges, governors, legislators and senators resorted to every dirty trick they could think of to protect their cash cow of slavery. It's documented that all political offices in slavery states were occupied by slave owners. Usually the biggest slave owners and cotton planters held the highest offices. Chief Justice Roger Taney for instance, was a major Texas slaver and cotton planter.

[@od1452]

Most people can't see their own hypocrisy. I think Jefferson was too smart to not see it ... which makes his "protective stance" worse.

[@michaelbayer5094]

Jefferson writes his convoluted and opaque letter as if he is not a slaveholder, not someone whose wealth, lifestyle, and luxurious home exist because of slavery, not someone who has taken his dead white wife's black half-sister as a concubine and enslaved their children. He writes as if slavery is alien to him, and abstract and unfamiliar concept, but slavery was essential to his very existence. Jefferson did many remarkable things in his public life from 1775 to 1809, but he was, to say the least, a hypocrite on the topic of human freedom.

[@gerrythorington7332]

Jefferson was a hypocrite!

[@Eman-pf4zz]

Thank goodness, he helped put together a document, documents by our founders. That slowly, but surely… things could change for the better and they have haven’t they. After all every race, every background all throughout the world throughout history have been enslaved or enslaved others … not one race group was spared, something to think about.

[@phillipnagle9651]

Nice words, but he didn't free his slaves.

[@JT-rx1eo]

True, but did you listen to his reasons why?

[@i.m.9918]

In short, Jefferson was a moral coward, and was conscious of it. His assertion that it was always inconvenient to abolish his personal participation and professional advocacy for slavery, is just a capitulation to self-indulgence. Sad. He was certainly better than most with respect to the institution… but woefully self-serving. Meanwhile, he sexually imposed upon a young slave who bore him children. Whether he ever sold any of his own children, I am unsure; but it’s of no matter, as support for the capacity to do so is itself an indictment of such corrupted morality. A talented and articulate man- but no personal firebrand for the manifest ‘freedom’ he asserted resided in “every American’s heart”. In short, he ‘talked’ a good game of ‘freedom’ … but that was all.

[@jude999]

You are projecting your self righteousness into a time from 200 years ago in an entirely different world. He did more than "talk a good game." He gave us a Foundation whose enlightenment and ideal was projected 200 years into the future and a beacon for the rest of the world. Now, people are trying to tear that down. It is pathetic.

[@i.m.9918]

@@jude999 - You are fundamentally incorrect. As I mentioned, the document (the Constitution) was ‘talk’ - not action. With slavery as a staple, ‘We The People’ was betrayed before the ink was dry. Secondly, your assertion that we are applying modern morality is ‘exceptionally’ poor reasoning: Jefferson himself acknowledged the moral failing of the institution. He wrote that American society would be lucky to escape divine wrath for what it was doing. Hello? Was he too ‘pathetic’? Moreover, the acknowledgment of slavery’s degeneracy was common knowledge, such that it is part of the Old Testament story of the Jews fleeing Egypt. Hello? Hardly ‘new’. You repeat the faulty assertion that concepts such as rape, human ownership, rampant depravities of infinite varieties are somehow ‘modern’. It is your lack of knowledge that is ‘pathetic’. Just because a man is articulate about morality and political propriety (as Jefferson clearly was), does not equate to practice. You are a classic creature of this age which considers celebrity a virtue. Try ‘virtue’ a ‘virtue’. Jefferson had contempt for the nodding intellectual donkeys like yourself that infected the republic at its birth. I admire Jefferson’s articulation; I just wished he hadn’t done it atop an enslaved young girl.

[@daltonadams4672]

​@@jude999The pathos comes from the the cowardice of those who believe that Black Africans' is a lesser human being. There were people in his time who said slavery was wrong. His position was and is wrong. The national hypocrisy lead to the laws against BlackAfricans and Black Americans ; the civil war, jim crow, and to the president day where it has become a anti- social, anti-American to speak of Black Americans history because it may hurt 'White American 'sensibilities.

[@infochannel392]

I noticed he referred to the slaves as "beings" in that letter, not "human beings".

[@ozzyphil74]

​@@jude999But still it was founded in hypocrisy and he knew it. Two things can be right at the same time

[@jamestregler1584]

❤❤❤❤❤😂🎉😢😢

[@jamestregler1584]

As a Jeffersonion I have read his papers from stem to Stern, I find nothing lacking in the great Man !

[@anthonycontarino4713]

An evil, condemed all around , just one question no one asks Is the GOD of the bible evil ? It's condemed in Eygpt and allowed in Canan, ponder it.

[@maximillianphoenix9374]

Vote Trump 2024

[@davidmichaeljackson]

Every time I read from the past I ask, are we dumber now or are we poorly educated?