highgreen, you know you are going to get in trouble. Jefferson brewed beer and drank wine. Next we'll find out Washington made rye whiskey. You are attacking the christian principles upon which this country were founded upon. Well, Jefferson was a democrat.

They drank beer, wine and whiskey? So what?

Christ drank wine at a minimum. As did figures throughout the Bible.

As for Jefferson on slavery.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~lnelson/Jefferson-Slavery.html

As for a sexual relationship with a slave? Was it forced slavery or a monogomous relationship with one slave woman AFTER is wife died?

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/thomasjefferson/

And for beating them.

http://www.wm.edu/niahd/journals/index.php?browse=entry&id=579

A strange time period in history. What did you do with slaves in a new nation where slaves yet did not have any where to go if freed?

No simplistic answers. But passing judgement based on society today is a fools game.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Thomas Jefferson was the author, albeit the plagiarist of several 17th and 18th century Europoean philosophers (i.e, Locke, Montesquieu, Hegel, etc.) Little of what he wrote was original. There is no evidence he physically abused any of his 200+ slaves, although the Sally Hemmings affair is beyond dispute. As to Jefferson's political success, he usually had others (like James Madison) do his dirty work in undoing competitor friends such as John Adams. Jefferson is only given sole credit as the father of the original, unsavory American political campaign since heretofore both Washington and Adams eschewed such campaigning thinking it wiser to leave those activities strictly in the hands of supporters. Washington was so concerned about separating the roles of administering from politicking that he would usually not shake hands. Jefferson opened the door to all we see in the modern campaign.

Jefferson always romanticized with and about the French. Some considered his relationship with France to be borderline sedition. But it was probably the nature of Jefferson's relationship with France that gave him the contacts with Napoleon Bonaparte that enabled Jefferson to achieve his true success--- the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson acquired a huge expansion of America at pennies an acre, which Napoleon used to fund a sagging war effort.

Back to slavery. I suppose in part it is my New England roots that prefers Adams over Jefferson although they did patch up their relationship before they each died on the same day, July 4, 1826. What I find remarkable is that Adams, the New England farmer, died with a respectable estate and yet Jefferson, with a Virginia plantation fueled by nearly 250 slaves, died insolvent. Indeed, reading the Declaration of Independence's admonition that "we hold these truths self-evident that all men are created equal" makes us think---- "But how could they own slaves?". A second grader at a school function asked me "If George Washington was so great, how could he own slaves?". For a good exposition of how this issue was resolved politically at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, see "Founding Brothers" by Joseph Ellis, specifically Chapter 3, "The Silence." To answer PTCGuy-- the solution "what to do with the slaves" (at the time) was either deportation or strict domestic segregation in separate communities. Jefferson, et al nevered favored equality. As for the allegations of beer drinking, neither I nor the Ampitheatre crowd were offended. Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine. The largest distiller of whiskey in his time was George Washington.

Happy Fourth of July ; Happy Independence....Only 9 months to Patriots' Day, a legal holiday in Boston.

Yep. Trying to judge that time by modern times is doomed to failure.

To answer PTCGuy-- the solution "what to do with the slaves" (at the time) was either deportation or strict domestic segregation in separate communities.

Segregation into separate communities was an absolute non-starter. Any historical review of the issues with Indians, alone, would show that such a mind set was impossible at that time.

Deportation would be the only possible alternative. But one with major issues as well.

Deport them back to Africa and they would have been forced into slavery immediately.

Giving them an island or mainland colony, somewhere, would have been expensive. I doubt the either the monies or will was there to do such.

Then the issues of defending them and so on.

History shows such major issues are never simple. Ever.

The only real solution was that it never began. And it did not begin until other than the those who originally settled for religious religions began coming over as well.

A bad part of European reality managed to get in. Sadly.

At least endentured servitude gave the person something in return and had a time span.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I don't think they were kidnapped and brought over to be freed, but if they had been paid for their work and had been able to say, "take this job and shove it," I think they would have found somewhere to go, don't you? There is now no longer need to justify such a sad time in our history. Similar to justifying the Viet Nam and Iraqi wars.

I don't think they were kidnapped and brought over to be freed,

A little clarity here.

Many were not kidnapped, they were sold by their own families and rulers into slavery.

Others were kidnapped and sold by other tribes who made a living selling other Africans into slavery.

Whites going into the African interior catching slaves is a big time myth.

In fact, the African slave trade, meaning blacks selling blacks, is still very much alive and healthy today. They are not selling them to Europeans and Americans.

but if they had been paid for their work and had been able to say, "take this job and shove it," I think they would have found somewhere to go, don't you?

No. You are not much of a historian, obviously.

There was no where to go within the colonies. Unfortunate but true.

Nor could they buy passage back to Afrcia. Even if they could have they were the undesirables there. Picked to be slaves to get rid of them for personal, social or other reasons.

Go out west and they Indians would have killed them.

It was a real dead end situation.

There is now no longer need to justify such a sad time in our history.

I am not trying to justify anything on slavery. I am trying to simply deal with a world wide reality at the time.

And that reality includes Africans with African slaves. Africans selling Africans to Europeans, Americans and others. The slave trade has never ceased in Africa.

A very complex issue. Far more than I see many wish to deal with.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Just fed up with the conservatives using these guys as role models for values. There are much better ones. But don't pick Franklin (Prostitutes galore, and wine in abundance) nor really, Washington--he was a bootlegger by the ton--it is where he got his cash. I think you could justify Nixon, Hitler, and Saddam just because they had to do it? Or were they conservatives?

Who can't just enjoy the ideas that these men came up with. Ideas that led to the founding of the United States so different from the monarchies that existed. You have to take something positive and turn it around to be ugly and apologetic. Enjoy the 4th and get off your high horse for goodness sake.

Agree.

Liberals refuse to examine what these men did in light of the realities of the world at that time.

They took a giant leap forward, based on Biblical concepts of human dignity, person freedom and much more, and constructed a vision unknown in the world before.

No. They would rather focus on any negative they can to try to force Christianity out of society today.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Country based on the Christianity of the "founding fathers? Nearly all of these guys were Deists, not Christians. Just a phony claim by conservatives to get the votes of red necks.

Deists believe God created and stopped being involved.

They do not believe the Bible was God given. They do not believe God endowed Man with any rights. They do not pray to God. Deists would not appoint Chaplains to the miliatry and Congress, they are anti-clerical and preacher.

http://ontruth.com/deism.html

Learn what you are talking about before you keep repeating these false claims. Stop repeating Secularists claims.

There being SOME Deists does not make ALL Deists. Nor does it mean they controlled the establishing of the country.

In fact, many of the states that sent these men tried to establish denominations as their State's official religion.

The Pilgrims were Christian. As were Anabaptists and others that fled here for religious freedom.

The Constitution most clearly states the people are free of a state established religion but the government is NOT free of religion acting upon and being within the government.

Again, I repeat, the first two acts of Congress established CHRISTIANITY in government and military.

THINK what these simple facts mean on the establishment of our country.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

OK. It will not make any difference to the liberals who want to deny reality, but, these links are educational:

Here are the religions of the framers of the Constitution. Only ONE Deist. 51 Christian denominations.

Here are the religions of the signers of the Constitution. Only TWO Deists and ONE Unitarian among those whose religions were known. 39 Christian denominations listed.

I did not count the 3, between both lists, that were listed as a denomination and Deist combined. Those are meaningless.

Nor the 13 unknowns among the signers since that tells us nothing.

Now, highgreen, you and some of your fellows, got the data the colonies and founders were loaded with Deists from where, exactly?

Liberals have no shame in trying to rewrite history to fit their agendas. You need to actually do some independent study.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I have never upheld them as role models. But they are historical figures that played key roles in our past.

Yep. Franklin had a personal life style I most assuredly do not endorse.

And I am an independent. As more and more people are becoming in disgust with both parties.

If we were to discuss role models, my choices would not be many of these guys. But we are talking historical figures, which we cannot dismiss there are.

Hope that clarifies where my dog lies in this issue.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.