Congressman: Out of Somalia under fire

The trouble with Somalia is that it could easily become another Tehran--circa 1979, Tehran.

They could grab a large number of Americans to hold hostage, and then Obama really would find himself compared to Carter on a daily basis.

This is like a win win for the rabid Americans. This has to be Obamas fault....and a democrat almost got killed.

* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | April 13, 2009 11:10 AM
.
Don’t look now, bill, but your partisanship is showing again. What’s with the “rabid” business anyway (and how do you define “rabid”)? In any event, it wouldn’t have been a “win-win” situation for any political party or faction in this country had the good Congressman been injured or killed. That’s because it would have meant that the bad guys were able to get some measure of revenge. We can’t have that. We can bicker locally, but when it comes to dealing with the bad guys, those who are ours are ours regardless of party affiliation.
.
To the extent that ornery is likely correct, and the bad guys will seek revenge, the State Department should issue advisories telling Americans to leave Somalia now. So get on your smoke signals and tell Hillary. Okay?

It was probably Terry, John D , John W and Bruce crewing that mortar, trying to rid the world of the red menance one Democrat at a time. The right wingers hate liberals as much as the Somalis hate americans, if not more.

The trouble with Somalia is that it could easily become another Tehran--circa 1979, Tehran.

They could grab a large number of Americans to hold hostage, and then Obama really would find himself compared to Carter on a daily basis.

Posted by: ornery | April 13, 2009 11:09 AM

Don't you mean like 1980s Lebanon, so that Obama could be compared to Reagan on a daily basis?

Although I'm sure that Obama would never negotiate with terroists and give them arms like the Appeaser Ronald Reagan. It was sad how weak on terror President Reagan was.

* * * * *
Posted by: Nickel | April 13, 2009 12:48 PM
.
Rubbish!
.
In the first place, those referred to today as liberals aren’t liberals. John Locke, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were liberals. If they were alive today, they would begin to puke, and continue puking without rest, after seeing what has been done by Democrats in the name of liberalism. The end-game of government to a “true” liberal is freedom from needless government restraint as well as protection from domestic and foreign enemies. The individual who is granted that free environment must then apply his freedom and industry to make his or her own way in the world. That exercise of freedom carries with it the responsibility for one’s own failure as well. In stark contrast, the accretion of nanny-state functions and centralized power over every facet of human existence, as is becoming more and more the case with our federal government, would have been strictly anathema to the liberals of old. That is why I have a tendency to refer to self-styled “liberals” as “pseudo-liberals” or false liberals. You should be honest and stop calling yourselves “liberals.” Give that label back to its true owners: the Libertarians. Hillary Clinton has already admitted that the label is inappropriate for the reasons outlined above. So now she calls herself a “progressive” - a label that is both historically and ideologically consonant with her views.
.
In the second place, I don’t hate “liberals” or pseudo-liberals. I disagree with some of the things they seek to accomplish, but, by all means, not “all” it. I am likewise inclined to verbally clash with people who embrace the pseudo-liberal agendum without subjecting it to any critical scrutiny. However, that is a far cry from lobbing mortar shells at people, or advocating physical violence at others with whom one has ideological differences. Your contrary suggestion, comparing Terry, John D., myself or others to terrorists or Somali pirates, is just over the top and out of bounds.

Don’t look now, bill, but your partisanship is showing again.
Posted by: John W. | April 13, 2009 12:33 PM

I thought by now it would be a little hard to hide!!!!!!!

Thanks for proving my point John, but everyone already knows how deep your anger and hatred of those on the left is. You can't even defend yourself without ranting about how terrible liberals are before you even get around to your denial. I'm sure that you'd be more than willing to take up arms against your fellow "pseudo liberal" fellow citizens. I bet you're already stocked up with guns and ammo, waiting for the day.

Reagan did a swift about face after the Marines were bombed in Lebanon.

A very pragmatic move, in retrospect.

As for Iran Contra, the most amazing thing was that it did not get any traction.

Reagan just went on TV and said, essentially, I mispoke, I was wrong, I'm sorry...

And it worked.

Nickel - You are so wrong. Like most right wingers who post on these sorts of blogs, those four guys are too cowardly to ever go into combat. They talk a tough game, but it's always other peoples lives they are willing to sacrifice for the cause never their own. They'll just cheer from the safety of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Brigade.

* * * * *
Posted by: Nickel | April 13, 2009 2:37 PM
.
I proved nothing of the sort. The fact that you couldn’t see dispassionate criticism in anything I wrote just goes to show that you’ve had a few too many gulps of Kool-Aid. Get a grip.

* * * * *
Posted by: Matthew | April 13, 2009 4:18 PM
.
Your post deserves no response other than a comment on how truly ignorant and idiotic it is. You don’t know anything about me.

"If they were alive today, they would begin to puke, and continue puking without rest, after seeing what has been done by Democrats in the name of liberalism"

This is what John W considers to be dispassionate criticism. Not every self aware is he? Pathetic isn't it? Own your anger John.

(Actually I'm sure you're right, those great "liberals" Jefferson and Madison, both slave owners , would clearly puke at the thought of our African American Democratic President. That's something we should be proud of, not lament.)

Your post deserves no response other than a comment on how truly ignorant and idiotic it is. You don’t know anything about me.

Posted by: John W. | April 13, 2009 4:45 PM

So when did you serve John?

Jefferson and Madison both hoped the U.S. would one day be rid of slavery. They would probably have been impressed that our society had become egalitarian enough to elect an African-American to the office of President. What they would have been ashamed of is the way we have set this country down the path of dependency, where people expect redistribution of material wealth at the hand of a central government. They would say, and I agree, that this is putting us onto the path of slavery. Our welfare state programs have already accomplished the slavery and degradation of those whom they were intended to benefit. Madison and Jefferson would also decry the plunder politics that reinforce this mentality. That is why I believe they would be puking were they here today to witness the destruction of our culture and society at the hands of well meaning fools in Washington D.C.
.
And because I detest the ideas of people who, sheep-like and lemming-like, rush headlong into slavery, you think I am collecting weapons to eradicate them? I will offer no forcible resistance to anyone who does not first threaten me with serious violence. Your suggestion that I might act out in such a lawless manner is unfounded, insulting and over the top.

* * * * *
Posted by: Matthew | April 13, 2009 5:16 PM
.
Over thirty years ago. And, if you’re good at math, you would know that they wouldn’t take me if I volunteered again.

"If they were alive today, they would begin to puke, and continue puking without rest, after seeing what has been done by Democrats in the name of liberalism"

This is what John W considers to be dispassionate criticism. Not every self aware is he? Pathetic isn't it? Own your anger John.

(Actually I'm sure you're right, those great "liberals" Jefferson and Madison, both slave owners , would clearly puke at the thought of our African American Democratic President. That's something we should be proud of, not lament.)

Posted by: Nickel | April 13, 2009 4:57 PM

Ridiculous argument-

I believe that reasonable, liberal men like Madison, Jefferson and throw in Hamilton as well- while slave owners- would require about 20 minutes of conversation on how the constitution had been legally amended since it's original writing, a horribly destructive war was fought with 100's of thousands of Americans dying in order to remove slavery from our culture to be able to rationally accept and reconcile a black American being president... their writing demonstrated an intellect that was extremely enlightened for the time they lived in....
You really should be more critical of the so called progressives in your parties past. Likely FDR would have been as repulsed as you would accuse Madison by an African American president, as would have Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and many other "progressive" icons of the left...

They didn't hope slavery would end. Not at all. If they would have they could have struck a blow for that freedom and freed their slaves. They did not, not even on their deaths. Jefferson, who kept his own children as slaves, cared about their liberty for African Americans? What a laugh. Almost as big a laugh as your notion that any existing or proposed government program is anything close to the evil of the chattal slavery that your heros Jefferson and Madison practiced their entire lives. You insult every decendant of those slaves by your feeble and inaccurate comparisons.
Dispassionate criticism? More like over the top rantings of a deluded, angry, right wing dead ender.

I stand corrected John W. You aren't a complete chicken hawk coward like your buddies John D, Terry and Bruce.

Mattie,
.
Like John W - a tad over the age limit. I guess I wouldn't have to tell that to an ex-ranger like you.

* * * * *
Posted by: Matthew | April 13, 2009 6:04 PM
.
I’m sorry if I can’t be as generous toward you. I would compare you something, as you have me, but that would only degrade the object to which I compared you.

* * * * *
Posted by: Mel | April 13, 2009 5:47 PM
.
Mel,
.
Go read the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence, and Jefferson’s and Madison’s writings. If you do, you will find out how terribly ignorant you really are about a good many things - including Jefferson’s and Madison’s distaste for slavery. Until you do, put a sock in it.

Likely FDR would have been as repulsed as you would accuse Madison by an African American president, as would have Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and many other "progressive" icons of the left...

Posted by: heartburn | April 13, 2009 5:46 PM

Heartburn, I'm no Partisan hack. I'm sure there are many past Democratic Presidents that would be troubled by an African American President. I'm sure there would be many past Republican Presidents who would have been equally as troubled. I have no problem criticising them. I feel no need to reflexively defend the indefensible acts of the "heros" of our history.
Yet. there is still a major difference. Actually owning slaves is on a different moral and ethical level, and I won't even go into the totally twisted "morality" of keeping your own children as slaves. Jefferson and Madison both had every opportunity to do something about the institution of slavery. They chose not to, either on a national or on a personal level. As a result I find it hard to hold them up as paragons of liberty, don't you? They got up in the morning, in a house built by slave labor, were dressed by a slave, ate food prepared by slaves, penned wrings on "liberty" in rooms cleaned by slave labor, heated by logs felled by slave labor, on desks built by slave labor, with pens and ink paid for by the fruits of slave labor. They bought and sold human beings and lived every moment of their lives off of the labor of those slaves. Why? Because they saw those slaves as less human than they are, less deserving of the same rights and freedoms they proclaimed were the right of all men, because of the color of their skins. There can be no denying their active racism as a result. I think the thought of a black man as the master of the White House, rather than as the owned property of that master, would have repulsed them to the core of their being. If it did not, they would NEVER have been able to reconcile their ownership of others as anything other than the abomination that it was. I feel no need to sugar coat that fact. Why do you and John W?

Mattie,
.
I've shot a gun a lot more than our commander-in-chief.

Posted by: John W. | April 13, 2009 8:36 PM

Yes John W, I've read those Documents, in both their early and final versions. Have you read the final versions? You know, the ones where all anti-slavery rhetoric is removed? John W, have you read their wills? Those are fascinating documents of "liberty". In them they left their relatives human beings as property. Words are easy, actions are hard. Neither Jefferson or Madison could take the actions. I'm not ignorant of the facts John. I'm simply not willing to coat everything with a happy, ultra patriotic glow and to ignore the very really failings of the Founders. Jafferson and Madison were slaveholders their entire lives, which makes them the most vicious of racists, in deed if not in the hypocrisy of their words. Aknowledging that fact seems to upset you greatly. I guess you just don't like dealing with fact rather than fantasy.

Posted by: Mel | April 13, 2009 9:48 PM

Mel- so what is your bottom line-if your arguing that slavery was a horribly cruel institution , you are stating the obvious. Does the fact that our founding fathers owned slaves discount the contributions they made to our society? I disagree with your assumption that someone like Madison would have been repulsed by the notion of a black man could be a president- he was clearly conflicted with the idea of owning slaves while at the same time penning "all men are created equal..." context is key here.. he struggled with the idea of freeing his slaves for reason that AT THE TIME were pragmatic and reasonable- basically there was no easy way to free a slave- w/o the slave either being re-enslaved or having no way to support him/hersefl w/o in effect being enslaved by someone else. There is documented history of Madison freeing at least one of his slaves to a Quaker - knowing that the Quaker religon abhorred slavery and would likely treat the freed slave as well as possible...

Without the founding documents created by people like Madison, it is likely that the institution of slavery would have existed for much longer than it did--it was clear that in the drafting of the document, that slavery was an issue that could not be resolved without the risk of having no document that united the states... would you have preferred the constitutional convention to have been unsuccessful in the creation of our constitution and having no basis for the eventual abolition of slavery?

* * * * *
Posted by: Mel | April 14, 2009 7:33 AM
.
Yes, Mel, I have read those documents. Furthermore, I am not willing to sugar coat any of what Jefferson or Madison were as people or to live by illusions of what they were. I do, however, believe the situation was much more complex than meets the eye - and so much so that it is not proper for you to judge them by 20th Century or even 21st Century standards.
.
Being as knowledgeable as you are, I am sure you know why the strong, anti-slavery language was removed from the Declaration of Independence. In case you forgot, I will remind you (since you didn’t bother to mention it). It was not removed because Jefferson favored its removal. He wrote it after all. It was removed because delegates to the Continental Congress from Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina opposed it. Those States had threatened to go their own way over the slavery question. Everyone else realized that the security of the other states would have been jeopardized without them. Furthermore, without those states, there would have been no consensus or solidarity in making the declaration in the first place. Remember, the point of the declaration was to impress the Crown with the seriousness of the situation - and a faction within the group would have been less than impressive. In short, the anti-slavery language was removed so the Declaration of Independence could become the consensus declaration it needed to be.
.
This is the same problem Madison and the Virginia delegation faced at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and why stronger, anti-slavery language never made it into the Constitution (other than Article I, Section 2 (the three-fifths clause), and Section 9, Cl. 1, (allowing the federal government to restrict or abolish the slave trade on or after 1808).) The South, except for Virginia, would not have joined the Union under the Constitution had it been otherwise. George Mason of Virginia actually refused to sign the Constitution, in part, because of its compromise language on the slavery question. Madison believed the Constitution still represented an improvement on the slavery question because it gave the federal government the power to eventually end the slave trade, whereas the Articles of Confederation would have permitted it to continue forever. He also considered it a minor triumph that no language in the Constitution explicitly recognized any property interest in human beings. Even the “three-fifths” clause recognized that slaves would count toward representation because they were “persons” rather than because of their status as property.
.
You also fail to mention Jefferson’s efforts at abolishing and restricting slavery. While a member of the House of Burgess, Jefferson proposed a law that would have emancipated all the slaves. (That was, apparently, at a time when he wasn’t so burdened by debt.) It was also Jefferson who proposed the abolition of slavery in all federally held lands. That idea was translated three years later into the Northwest Ordinance - which did, in fact, prohibit slavery in what are now Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin. It was also Jefferson who, in 1808, signed into law the bill that prohibited the further importation of slaves.
.
It is with regard to Jefferson’s and Madison’s wills where you fail by judging them with 21st Century ideas.
.
Jefferson actually never explicitly bequeathed any of his slaves to anyone else in his will. In fact, in the codicil to his will, he explicitly manumitted five of his slaves. He also provided them with the necessities of life, places to live, and the tools of their chosen trade. Such was necessary under the law of Virginia, because manumission carried with it a continuing duty on the part of the former slave-holder to be financially responsible for the care of a former slave; and that duty operated as a charge against the property or estate of the former slave-holder. In the event a former slave appeared in public without any visible means of support, the government of Virginia could seize property and sell it for the former slave’s care. Thus, contrary to popular belief, manumission did not simply entail handing a slave his or her papers and showing them the road. In practical terms, manumission carried with it a duty to make a substantial monetary settlement with former slaves in order to care for them. This was further complicated to no small degree by the law of 1806 (some 20 years before Jefferson’s death and 30 years before Madison’s) which required all manumitted slaves to depart from Virginia within a year of manumission or be subject to capture and enslavement.
.
This explains in no small part why Jefferson failed to manumit the rest of his slaves or even a larger part of them either in his will or during his lifetime. He couldn’t afford it. Despite his holdings, he was always a debtor, and died very deeply in debt. Having spent most of his adult life in public service, often in foreign lands and other states, with barely any respite; having suffered a number of financial and business calamities as a result of wars, depressions, greedy relatives and mooching visitors; and being paid little more than necessary to cover his costs of office for his service, his debts at the time of his death exceeded the value of his estate by approximately $44,000 in 1826 dollars. That figure, itself, was ameliorated by the fact that his grandson and heir had already paid some of his debts to the tune of approximately $58,000. Being over $100,000 in debt meant that, not only could he ill afford the cost of manumission, his status as a debtor restricted his ability to alienate any of his property to the detriment of his creditors. Hate it as we do now, the law of Virginia considered his slaves to be his property. Therefore, to judge him evil or less than a man devoted to liberty for failure to free all his slaves is to judge him wrongly and without concern for his real circumstances.
.
The same circumstances attended Madison, although to a lesser degree. He left office as President with mounting debt and the financial collapse of his plantation. He had to sell some of his land and slaves just to keep the rest of them healthy and fed. Yes, in his will he left “negroes and people of color” to his wife. He also stated that it was his will that none of the slaves should be sold, at least not without their consent; and the same should go for their children. Madison believed, incorrectly, that his slaves would be better cared for by his wife, Dolley (not Dolly), than if they were sold. Little did he know that mounting financial pressures after his death would force Dolley to move back to Washington D.C. after selling the entire plantation and the remaining slaves. His will also contained a bequest of $2,000 to the Colonization Society to which he belonged - which removed slaves from the United States to Liberia. So yes, unlike the situation with Jefferson who simply could not afford to free his slaves, Madison failed to free his slaves partly from a lack of money, partly from the selfish motive of providing for his wife and, to a lesser degree, to keep his slaves from the danger of being sold to a cruel master.
.
On the other hand, Jefferson’s and Madison’s works in government, the laws and Constitution laid the groundwork for the eventual emancipation of all slaves. The contradiction between the institution of slavery and the notion that “all men are created equal,” as penned by Jefferson, was the touchstone for many an abolitionist. The language of the Northwest Ordinance prohibiting slavery in the Territories, which was Jefferson’s brainchild, was nearly identical to the words used to frame the Thirteenth Amendment. Jefferson’s act in signing into law the abolition of the slave trade from outside the U.S. represented a major restriction on the proliferation of slavery in the U.S. Madison himself believed that slaves were men entitled to their own dignity and freedom, and he fought and often lost many battles over the issue. These are the facts. Thus, it is simply false to suggest, as you have, that Jefferson and Madison did not look forward to the end of slavery in the United States, or that they failed to act to end slavery. They did, but in their own time they were quite overwhelmed by the opposition. Contrary to what heartburn represented, it would take less than a 20 minute conversation to explain to satisfy them why slavery had to go or why we now have an African-American President.

Heh, I don't know which of you is more deluded? Excusing slaveholding. Pathetic.

Heartburn, Madison kept his slaves for thier own good? Nonsense. Given a choice every single one of those slaves would have chosen freedom with all it's risks over remaining a piece of property. Would you be willing to be kept as a slave for your own good? Of course not.

Then we have John W, whio believes the fate of the slaves were expendable, both for the good of the nation and for the personal benefit of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison. Apparently John W is unaware that to the extent that the slaves cared about the founding of the Republic, they were rooting for the British. The British freed slaves during the Revolution, an action that Mr. Jefferson fought bitterly. As to his hidtorically nonsensical notion that the Founding Documents meant that slavery would end sooner than it would have otherwise, I would remind him that every slave in the British Empire was freed by 1834. Imperial Russia freed the serfs in 1861. The French Republic banned slavery in 1794. Tha Danish abolished slavery in their colonies in 1802. Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela abolish slavery in 1821. 1829 Mexico abolishes slavery. The founding documents protected slavery, and prolonged it's life in this country. far from hastening the demise of that dreadful institution, it made the United States one of the last nations to abolish slavery. John W is also fully supportive of Mr Jefferson choosing slave holding, including his own children, over bankruptcy. The financial status of Jefferson's white children is to be taken into account. The devastating affect on his black children is to be ignored. I'm sure John W would happily enslave himself and his children so that some other great man could live in the lap of luxury writing about Liberty, wouldn't he? No? Ohh, that's right, he's special, unlike the slaves who really weren't very important were they? Maybe he'd agree to it if he couldn't be sold without his consent? Still no? Hmm.

I wonder why John W and heartburn are so accepting of the notion of slavery for Madison and Jefferson's slaves, and not themselves and their families. I wonder why they look back at that slavery and say, "Oh well too bad, but not a very big deal?" I wonder if they were descended from those slaves if they would be as willing to defend Jefferson and Madison? What if Jefferson owned a bunch of white slaves who's last name was W, would John be as blase toward their fate and suffering?

And yes, I stand my my assertion that both Jefferson and Madison were vicious racists. They tolerated and participated in the enslavement of blacks. They would never have tolerated whites being treated in the same manner. They went to war because of far less serious infringements on the rights of whites than what they personally inflicted on blacks every single day of their lives. Blacks were less important than whites to them. The rights of blacks were not worth fighting or sacrifice for in any way. That is the definition of racism, and it went deep in them, very deep. It must have for them to have awoken every single morning knowing that they personally denied the more basic of right to dozens of people beacuse of the color of their skin. They were ok with that. Certainly it didn't bother either of them enough to end that situation.

If they walked into the White House, and saw Barack Obama there, you know what their reaction would be? "Boy, shine my boots." When they did, John W and heartburn would be standing behind them saying "Well, Barack, you know how it is. They are the product of their times,. There's a rag over there, you better get to work. I'm sure you won't mind helping these great men. We won't, but it's ok for you."

* * * * *
Posted by: Mel | April 14, 2009 6:26 PM
.
Mel wrote: “Then we have John W, who believes the fate of the slaves were expendable, both for the good of the nation and for the personal benefit of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison.”
.
I would like Mel to show me where I said that, or even implied it. I didn’t. I wish Mel would address what I said instead of what he thinks I said.
.
Then Mel wrote, “Apparently John W is unaware that to the extent that the slaves cared about the founding of the Republic, they were rooting for the British.”
.
To be more precise, slaves rooted for whoever would grant them freedom. Free blacks and manumitted slaves served in both armies.
.
Then Mel wrote: “As to his hidtorically nonsensical notion that the Founding Documents meant that slavery would end sooner than it would have otherwise, I would remind him that every slave in the British Empire was freed by 1834. Imperial Russia freed the serfs in 1861. The French Republic banned slavery in 1794. Tha Danish abolished slavery in their colonies in 1802. Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela abolish slavery in 1821. 1829 Mexico abolishes slavery. The founding documents protected slavery, and prolonged it's life in this country. far from hastening the demise of that dreadful institution, it made the United States one of the last nations to abolish slavery.”
.
Contrary to Mel’s understanding (of course), I was not referring to slavery throughout the world. I was only referring to the effect of the Constitution on domestic slavery versus what would have happened without it. The Articles of Confederation - the frame of government we had before the Constitution - would have permitted international and interstate slave trade to continue in perpetuity. In contrast, the Constitution permitted the federal government to regulate or abolish the slave trade in interstate or international commerce in 1808. This was an important step, inasmuch as the eventual abolition of slavery remained impossible as long as the importation of slaves continued to saturate the States. In addition, the new frame of government under the Constitution also provided for a stronger federal government on a par or greater than that of any of the States, in which case an amendment to the Constitution (the mechanism for which was provided, and which eventually took place) would then permit the federal government to outlaw the institution of slavery everywhere in every state - even over the objection of the States. That, too, would have been impossible under the Articles of Confederation - which granted the lion’s share of power to the States and denied the federal government the power to affect domestic policy. So, yes, indeed the Constitution did shorten the life of slavery in this country - contrary to Mel’s cramped reasoning.
.
Mel then wrote: “John W is also fully supportive of Mr Jefferson choosing slave holding, including his own children, over bankruptcy. The financial status of Jefferson's white children is to be taken into account. The devastating affect on his black children is to be ignored.”
.
This again is a total misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what I wrote. Then again, Mel managed to filter out too many of the salient facts regarding Thomas Jefferson to comprehend what I was talking about. A recap of what I said would go like this:
.
1. In Virginia, the law prohibited private manumission until 1782. That means manumission could only be granted by the State. After 1782, manumission was permitted by will or writing under signature and seal of the slave-holder. However, to prevent destitute slaves from becoming a charge on the government of Virginia, the law required that the former slave holder remain financially responsible for the needs of the ex-slave. In very practical terms, that meant that a slave who was to leave and seek his or her own fortune in the world had to be trained in a trade or skill, and have sufficient resources to survive until he or she could set up hearth, home and shop. That took a substantial quantity of time and money - especially the time to train the ex-slave in a skill that would make him or her self-sufficient.
.
It was not practical to simply say, “bye, bye. God bless you,” and show the ex-slave the road. Doing so would bring the Virginia government down on the former slaveholder. That’s because the duty of financial responsibility toward ex-slaves wasn’t a social custom. It was a law enforced by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
.
3. Jefferson didn’t have any money. I mean, that boy was broke. He was up to his eyeballs in debt most of his life, owing to circumstances beyond his control. He was about $102,000 in debt shortly before he died in 1826. That would be millions in today’s dollars. His grandson paid in $58,000. Even after that, the value of his estate was still $44,000 in the red.
.
4. In which case, Jefferson was UNABLE to free any more of his slaves. It wasn’t a matter of wanting to, or going through bankruptcy. Had Jefferson declared bankruptcy, his slaves would have been SOLD to pay his debts. They would not have been freed. If Mel were in Jefferson’s shoes, Mel couldn’t have lawfully freed more of the slaves either. In short, it wasn’t a question of choosing between the least of several evils. It was a question of inability. I hope this is clearer now.
.
And then Mel wrote: “I wonder why John W and heartburn are so accepting of the notion of slavery for Madison and Jefferson's slaves, and not themselves and their families. I wonder why they look back at that slavery and say, "Oh well too bad, but not a very big deal?" I wonder if they were descended from those slaves if they would be as willing to defend Jefferson and Madison? What if Jefferson owned a bunch of white slaves who's last name was W, would John be as blase toward their fate and suffering?”
.
I never said such a thing, or even suggested it. I was merely pointing out that the circumstances were a lot more complicated and difficult than simply showing the slaves the door and saying, “Go thee henceforth and make your way in the world.” Mel’s inability to grasp the difficulties of navigating through life in early 19th Century Virginia is what makes his judgment so black and white (no pun intended). Of course my 20th and 21st Century sensibilities find the notion of slaveholding repulsive, just as in the case of segregation, discrimination or racial strife of any kind. However, looking backward with 20-20 hindsight into the early 19th Century, and without understanding the social consciousness or the social and legal pressures at work, isn’t exactly fair either. I am sure that 300 years from now someone is going to harshly judge me (and Mel) and many others for acts and attitudes that we view today as PC.
.
A little further on, Mel comments (regarding Madison’s and Jefferson’s attitude toward slaves), that, “They would never have tolerated whites being treated in the same manner.”
.
That’s not exactly true either. Indentured servitude existed for white people during Jefferson’s and Madison’s lives. That meant white people were held as slaves for a term of years, normally to pay the cost of their training and board. Sometimes, it was to pay the cost of transportation to America from England. Indentured servants could be disciplined, and even flogged, by their masters; and not a few of them were known to escape their servitude. (Benjamin Franklin escaped his indentured servitude.) By most accounts, Madison and Jefferson treated their slaves just as well, and perhaps better in some cases, than many under indentured servitude. So, it really depends on what you mean by “the same manner.”
.
Finally, Mel commented (again with regard to Madison and Jefferson) that, “If they walked into the White House, and saw Barack Obama there, you know what their reaction would be? "Boy, shine my boots." When they did, John W and heartburn would be standing behind them saying "Well, Barack, you know how it is. They are the product of their times. There's a rag over there, you better get to work. I'm sure you won't mind helping these great men. We won't, but it's ok for you."
.
This is entirely false. They might have marveled that this country produced such a well educated Afro-American with enough popularity to get elected President, but they would have granted him the respect he deserved. Their skepticism about the abilities of black people was based on their day-to-day perceptions of those deprived of an education and means of self-refinement. They understood the lack of education and refinement was the cause of the shortcomings they observed - rather than some inherent inferiority. Mel would have known this had he really read their writings. However, Mel is so angry at these two for what appears, on its face to be unforgiveable hypocrisy, that he really could not bring himself to read very much of it. Moreover, Mel is entirely incorrect in suggesting that I would have abetted any dismissive and condescending attitude they might have exhibited. But, that’s just Mel.

Yes, I admit it. Slave holding makes me angry. I find it to be an unforgivable crime against humanity, in any time, in any place. Unlike you I am not moved by Jefferson and Madison's supposed compassion for those they cruelly enslaved. I will not minimize their gross and continual violations of human rights. I will not pretend that they were not racists. I will not pretend that they thought their slaves, and all slaves, were as deserving of freedom than whites. Their actions and inactions make that inarguably clear. I have no shame in making that statement. I stand by my condemnation of both Jefferson as Madison as slave holders and tyrants over those they felt they could properly own based on the color of their skin. I'm simply surprised that a man who claims to be a libertarian isn't willing to make those same statements. I guess your commitment to liberty and basic rights doesn't run all that deep, much like Jefferson and Madison.

Next thing you'll be telling us that we really shouldn't condemn John Demjanjuk because, after all being a concentration camp guard was perfectly acceptable and honorable in his country at the time. Perhaps we should look up to him as a hero for this patriotic service to his country of birth, right John? After all we would never want to project the morality of our time on him.

John w, I almost forgot to demolish you silly comparison of slavery and indentured servitude. I couldn't let that nonsense go by without correction.

First off John, Indentured servitude, while a restriction of basic rights, was a contract freely entered into by the one being indentured. They were not taken from their homes, against their will and forced into service. Most often, indenture was the means of settling a debt, for example the cost of transportation to the colonies. As a result the indentured servant had recieved something of value that they had desired for their service. This was not the case with slavery.

Secondly, Indenture was for a realtively limited amount of time, ususally 3 to 7 years. After the expiration of the contract the fromer servant was a fully free citizen with every single right of every other citizen, including the former master. Indenture did not bind the offspring of the servant. This was not true for emancipated slaves.

The indenture contract also bound the master to certain obligations, at the minimum, room, board, and clothing. In many cases, such as was the case with Franklin, the master was also obligated to train the servant in a trade or skill. (Now, let me add here that your understanding of the Franklin situation is deeply flawed as well. Franklin was not properly an Indentured servant. He was an apprentice printer. He was apprenticed to his own brother to learn to be the print trade). In the slavery relationship, there was no legal obligation on the master, only on the slave.

Now we get to the part where your own analogy turns against you. In the specific context of Mr. Jefferson, Mr., Madison, and the founding documents of this nation, the comparative status of the indentured and the enslaved in quite interesting. Let's examine Article I , shall we?

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "

So you, see John, the indentured were considered "free persons" under the Constitution. As free persons, they were counted as a full person for the census, since they would have full unfettered citizenship rights at the end of their term of service. Slaves, having no rights, nor the promise of ever recieving rights, were not considered free persons, and were only counted as 3/5th of a human being.

So you see, John, contray to your assertion otherwise, Jefferson, Madison, and the other founders were clearly not willing to see white persons subjected to the same restrictions on liberty as black persons, even in the case of indentured servitude. The Constitution considers the indentured as more highly privledged than chattal slaves, as did Jefferson, Madison, and your other pseudo-libertarian heros.

As I said, they would NEVER have allowed whites to have their freedom as restricted as blacks rights were under slavery, and in fact they did not. They considered even the whites who's freedoms were most heavily, but temporarily, burdened to be in an entirely different class of citizenship than their black slaves.

This is the institutionalization of the racism of the founders, including the racism of Jefferson and Madison.

The racism which you cannot acknowledge or admit, prefering to live in the fantasy land where Jefferson and Madison, for their entire lives, owned, bought and sold as slaves other human beings, all black, whom you believe they thought were fully their equals, without any hint of racism, and that this lifetime of activity was wholly forced upon them against their will, and in which they had no recourse toward any other action at any time in the course of their lives. Simply not plausible John. Face reality. Jefferson and Madison were racists. They held even white indentured servants to have vastly more value, and vastly more rights, than any black, especially thier black slaves.

* * * * *
Posted by: Mel | April 15, 2009 12:10 PM
.
Now permit me to “demolish” your critique of my comments regarding slavery and indentured servitude. It was often true, but not always true, as you suggested, that indentured servitude was a voluntary agreement. Sometimes it wasn’t. Sometimes a person who landed on the eastern shore of American as an indentured servant got their by being drugged, plied with too much liquor, or shanghaied. Sometimes children (under the age of contract capacity) were enticed away from their families to meet the quotas of those in the business of procuring and sending servants to America. Even in cases where a person voluntarily signed an agreement, it ceased being voluntary before the ink dried on the paper. Those subject to indentured servitude were subject to capture, corporal punishment and imprisonment after entering indo indentured servitude without fulfilling the terms of the agreement.
.
In the second place, my comments about indentured servitude were in response to your vague statement about how Madison and Jefferson "would never have tolerated whites being treated in the same manner.” As I took pains to point out, that really depended upon what you mean by "the same manner." Once a person entered into indentured servitude, their lives and treatment at the hands of their masters, for better or worse, were often indistinguishable from that of many “chattel” slaves for the duration of their servitude. Madison and Jefferson both had chattel slaves who worked in their houses. From what one could determine from the glowing and fond reports of those slaves (after manumission), they were treated like family members. This experience was not uncommon. True, this was likely the case because some slave owners treated their chattel slaves better than others did, but they were all effectively slaves all the same.
.
It is also true that treatment of some chattel slaves was not common to the treatment of indentured servants. However, again, you did not previously explain exactly what you meant by “the same manner.” You can rant all you like about how the treatment was different. The point I made was that sometimes the treatment between a chattel slave and an indentured servant, from the time they showed up at the front door until they left, was indistinguishable.
.
In the third place, the Constitution, prior to ratification of the 13th Amendment, did not specify that indentured servants were “free.” The wording of Article I, section 2 of the Constitution was meant to deprive slave-holding states of over-representation due to the excessive and disproportionate number of chattel slaves whom representatives would never effectively represented. The phrase “including those bound to Service for a Term of Years” was added to expand the category of persons who gets counted in whole numbers - probably because no one would have otherwise thought of numbering indentured servants with “free persons.” And, remember, the point of section 2 was to determine the basis of representation, and not the status of a person as “free” or otherwise.
.
Moreover, the Constitution did not alter the fact that indentured servants could not vote, marry, contract, travel or, sometimes, even leave the house, without their masters’ consent. The Constitution also had nothing to say about the fact that an indentured servant could be bought, sold or traded during his or her term of service, much the same as a chattel slave; or that indentured servants were subject to beatings, rape and other brutal mistreatment without legal recourse.
.
With regard to Benjamin Franklin, I would refer you to his autobiography concerning the subject of his indentured servitude. Young Benjamin Franklin had an urge to go to sea. To quash that urge, his father pressured him to sign an indenture at age twelve. He was to be indentured to his brother until he was 21 years old (i.e. for nine years). Franklin recalls of his brother that:
.
“Though a brother, he considered himself as my master, and me as his apprentice, and accordingly, expected the same services from me as he would from another, while I thought he demean'd me too much in some he requir'd of me, who from a brother expected more indulgence. Our disputes were often brought before our father, and I fancy I was either generally in the right, or else a better pleader, because the judgment was generally in my favor. But my brother was passionate, and had often beaten me, which I took extreamly amiss; and, thinking my apprenticeship very tedious, I was continually wishing for some opportunity of shortening it, which at length offered in a manner unexpected.” (See http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/chapt2/ )
.
Franklin took leave of his indenture at a time when his brother was running into trouble with the authorities for some of the things printed in his paper. Franklin got on a ship, sailed away and eventually made his way to Philadelphia. Thus, although his indenture was to another family member, he was still subject to the same discipline, and even cruelty, suffered by other indentured servants.
.
Finally, with regard to the recriminations you have thrown about, please understand that I merely understand Madison and Jefferson as people with limitations who were headed in the right direction. I do not believe that slavery is, or ever was, anything other than evil. If you look hard enough, you will see that both Madison and Jefferson agreed, even if you choose to describe this as mere lip service. However, they not only spoke against slavery and wrote against slavery, but acted against slavery. Arguably, their actions were not sufficient, and their own personal behavior can easily be criticized as inconsistent with their own stated beliefs and actions. On the other hand, their words and actions did point the way forward in the right direction. I suppose one might also, and with equal facility, denigrate Abraham Lincoln for his personal belief in the inferiority of Afro-Americans and the need to expatriate and colonize them on foreign soil, despite the fact that he effectively ended slavery. He didn’t get the job done completely either. Each age of human progression has its own lights, and some are brighter than others; but no single one has been sufficient in itself to light the entire way. Such is the nature of human beings and their social evolution. I simply don’t feel the need to douse earlier lights because they weren’t perfect. I can accept perfect ideas from less than perfect humans.

I simply don’t feel the need to douse earlier lights because they weren’t perfect. I can accept perfect ideas from less than perfect humans.

Posted by: John W. | April 15, 2009 5:24 PM

I guess the difference between us is that I won't let the light of their ideas blind me to the evil they practiced on a daily basis. Admire their words and ideas, but do not delude yourself that they are worthy to be admired as human beings. Terrible men can say good things. Good men can sometimes say terrible things. Hero worship doesn't bring enlightenment or progress. Admitting dark realities, no matter how painful, does.

Jefferson and Madison were terrible, racist men who committed truly awful acts that were in direct opposition to their great writings on liberty. Their actions never changed.
Lincoln said some awful racist things, yet over time, he made continual progress in realizing the error of those ways, but most importantly Lincoln's actions backed up his words. His actions became progressively stronger in the cause of freedom and equality for all. He moved beyond colonization, to demanding full citizenship for all. He paid more than lip service to that ideal, he made it happen, at no small risk to himself. Perhaps if Lincoln was as unwilling to risk in the name of freedom for african-americans as Jefferson and Madison, he would not have had give that "last full measure of devotion". But thankfully for all of us he was made of stronger stuff than Jefferson and Madison, and was unwilling to trade the slavery of others, and the denial of rights to a whole race, for his own personal comfort like Jefferson and Madison were.