Hmmm. And what guidance was Jefferson receiving from the ancient, religious traditions to which, according to you, he ought to have been appealing for help in his spiritual difficulty?

Because if there is one thing about J. not in dispute, it is that he was unsettled in his mind about slavery.

In other words, was his behavior concerning slavery -- whatever its details may have been -- conservative or radical?

Harry:

Conservative. There's nothing immoral about slavery per se. His failure was one of scientific understanding, that blacks were fully human, which makes the particular variant of slavery practiced in America immoral.

That wasn't the question. The question was, what sort of help did he get from the source you say we should all turn to for help?

Harry:

From everything we know of him, he treated his slaves well even though he believed them inferior. As a general matter though, based on his belief in Man's having been Created by God, he himself created the state that eventually freed all blacks. Thus did God act through this flawed man to help all mankind--no little thing that.

In a faint echo of the topic, I assume both OJ & Harry have seen the claim of the 78 year old woman in Los Angeles; the claim being that she is the daughter of Strom Thurmond and his former houskeeper, a black woman. The picture of her sure does resemble ol' Strom in my opinion...

Bruce:

She's hardly the first to crop up. Senator Thurmond was indeed the worst kind of demagogue on race.

If you are interested in the truth about Jefferson, you should check the web site of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. They established a commission of outstanding historians to research the matter. The commission concluded:

"The question of whether Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more children by his slave Sally Hemings is an issue about which honorable people can and do disagree. After a careful review of all of the evidence, the commission agrees unanimously that the allegation is by no means proven; and we find it regrettable that public confusion about the 1998 DNA testing and other evidence has misled many people. With the exception of one member, whose views are set forth both below and in his more detailed appended dissent, our individual conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge to a conviction that it is almost certainly false."

One member of the commission wrote:

"it is simply the case that no credible evidence has proven that Thomas Jefferson fathered any of Sally Hemings' children."

Jefferson was rather more complicated than that.

He despaired of the common field hands ever raising (or being raised) to the point of managing their own affairs. That says something about what "good treatment" consisted of. But he recognized a better sort of black. It is not clear to me, and I have no documentary evidence for it, but I suspect he considered this better sort to be better because of their mulatto ancestry.

Nevertheless, the question is about religion and morality. Science was not, when J. inherited his slaves, used by anybody to justify the practice. That came much later.

If anything, the corrosive skepticism, allied to scientific skepticism, of the likes of Voltaire was the only intellectual threat to slavery at that time.

It is true that the first "reasoned" (Thomas's word) challenge to slavery was religious, Sewell in 1711. But Sewell's ideas sank without a trace.

About the time J. inherited his slaves, the middle classes in England began petitioning Parliament against the slave trade. Not against slavery, against the trade.

Their motivation seems to have been horror at how it was managed.

The question remains: What moral teaching from religion did J. (or anybody else) get about the rightness or wrongness of slavery?

You duck the answer, because we both know what it is. With the exception of eccentrics like Sewell and, later, some of the evangelicals, moral, Christian teaching was and always had been proslavery.

Harry:

I'm not sure I can be any clearer: Slavery is not incompatible with morality.

Well, there is that pesky rule of thumb by Lord Acton.

I'm not sure I can be any clearer. Any morality compatible with slavery isn't worth having.

Jeff:

Strong words for a man who advocates murdering infants and the infirm. I bet the fetuses would prefer slavery.

Harry:

Slavery and/or serfdom existed pretty much everywhere from the dawn of history until the 18th century. As you admit, the first challenge came from the religious. Why are you trying to leave the impression that religion, particularly Christianity, caused or introduced slavery. Can you point to any ancient classicists who opposed it? Early atheists?

You would have a grand old hoot if I tried to say that the veracity of this or that science is related to the behaviour of the scientists who expouse it. Yet you persist in judging a faith that holds that all are sinners on the basis of whether any of its adherents sin.

Orrin:

Owning another human being is compatible with morality?

"Strong words for a man who advocates murdering infants and the infirm."

That's a reasonably good example of libel.

label

Peter:

When the alternative is killing them (as we did in WWII for example)? Ask the Nagasakans which they'd have preferred.

Slavery was just a means of assimilating conquered peoples to the p[evailing culture. It's not clear we've done much better since ditching it.

Thanks for making my point, Peter.

The practical value of Christian morality is zip, ain't it? Particularly if you're on the receiving end.

No moral or political system can ever afford to treat lightly those who can't conform to its bases.

You say Jefferson's slaves could not conform to Christian opinion? They were happy to.

Yes, the science was wrong--blacks are fully human and our moral equals.

Harry:

Your welcome. Orrin, I think they are our equals in other ways too.

What science? There was no science of anthropology until the early 1800s, and that was confined to the ancient Danes and so irrelevant to African slavery. Scientific (or scientistic) hypotheses about the relative status of races date from after Jefferson's death.

All the arguments made about Africans being a mudsill race and deserving of slavery were Christian and biblical arguments. Sons of Ham and all that.

Harry is a bigot of the worst kind -- ignoring all of the "practical" good that Christian morality has done in the world (e.g Salvation Army, missions, etc.) while excusing Darwin and other secularists with a simple "they didn't know any better becuase science hadn't figured that out yet, blah, blah, blah". Ask the MILLIONS of people in the world who have food in their belly, a roof over their head, and/or some basic medical care as a result of practical Christian morality if its worth ZIP.

Well, SV, Darwin wasn't born until after Jefferson made his arrangements for his slaves, so you cannot blame him for that.

J. was deeply troubled about slavery. My original question was, what assistance did he get from religion or Christian moral teachers in dealing with it?

The answer, of course, is none.

As for the beneficiaries of Christianity, first I'll ask the millions who were slaughtered because they differed about such important matters as the conflict between homoousion and homoiousion

Harry:

Millions have been slaughtered and more will be because they don't agree with democracy, so what?

Jefferson freed the slaves when he wrote, "all men are Created equal".

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but given a choice between defending democracy and defending homoousion against homoiousion, well, democracy is going to win every time.

It is appalling even one person died arguing over homoousion and homoiousion. Never mind thousands.

Jeff:

It hardly needs pointing out that you deny the humanity of the 40 million babies who've been killed since Roe v. Wade. Mr. Jefferson need hardly bow his head in shame to you.

OJ:
What needs pointing out is precisely the position I have taken on the matter.

Where, precisely, did I deny the humanity of 40 million babies?

When you said it's okay to kill them.

But he didn't free his slaves.

You keep ducking the question, which is not whether Jefferson was wise or kind, or what were the long-term consequences of his actions. The question is, how much help to him in his despair and moral questioning was religion, or less specifically, Christian morality?

And the answer is, none at all.

Harry:

The personal doesn't matter. The point is that his Christian faith remade his society and world. How many can claim as much? If he was tortured at night by the conflict between his own treatment of blacks and the certain knowledge that he was sinning, he more than paid for those sins.

OJ:
I never said any such thing.

The Enlightenment and secularism remade society and the world.

Jeff:

You oppose abortion?

How about you tell me upon what you based "When you said it's okay to kill them."

Harry - Try this re your question (excerpted from http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/slavery.PDF): "from Notes on Virginia
again:
“[W]ith what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting
one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms
those into despots, and these into enemies, . . . can the liberties of a nation
be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a
conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of
God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble
for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep
for ever . . . The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in
such a contest.”

So J. obviously knew he was wrong and risked G-d's wrath.

SV

Yes, he did. But that is not the question. The question, which is central to Orrin's worldview that religion and specifically the Christian religion is our only defense against tyranny, is what help did Jefferson get from this source?

And the answer is, he got none.

I was reminded last night of an incident I had forgotten, that in the 1790s (just about when Jefferson was wrestling with the practical issue of owning slaves, after his sale of them was rejected by British bondholders) Robert Carter III manumitted his 500 slaves.

That was the largest manumission until the Civil War. Carter wrote that he did it having concluded that religion and morality required it.

Curiously, however, nobody else thought so. He got zero support from the religions of the time.

In other words, Carter came by his morality the same way I do -- he evaluated the situation and used his human rationality to draw a conclusion. He framed his response differently that I would, but obviously, neither religion nor Christian morality can claim credit for Carter, much as they might like to, because he was heterodox.

Sewell, too, was heterodox.

Washington manumitted his too. But the point is the only reason slavery troubles the conscience is because of Christianity. That seems to be where you go wrong with the faith Harry. You think it's about what God can do for you. In fact, God is there to trouble your soul, not hold your hand.

Harry's point is that slavery troubles the conscience is that, given enough objective inspection, it is troubling to the conscience.

The circular logic is intentional.

It certainly didn't trouble the conscience of a great many Christians, who used religion to defend slavery.

Slavery is generally defensible morally. American slavery ultimately wasn't. So Christians did away with it.

No morality worthy of the name would defend slavery.

Besides, there were as many Christians defending slavery as opposing it. It seems that objective morality you are so fond of felt very strongly both ways.

Jeff:

Even the Africans, who were brought here in a particularly disturbing form of slavery, ended up reaping benefits in the long run--or their descendants did. Slavery might in fact be a better solution to the problem of Islam than the one we could eventually end up with--genocide.

Morality is simply silent on slavery--it's an area where relativism is not inappropriate.

On the other hand, no moral case can be made for abortion, but you advocate for it readily enough. Jefferson comes off well in the comparison.

A very large proportion of the African slaves in the Atlantic trade didn't have any descendants, so that argument won't wash.

It is certainly curious that you're willing to give Jefferson credit for the byblows of his policy, no matter how reprehensible his personal conduct, yet you go ballistic whenever I point out that the byblows of Stalin's conduct were very good for Americans.

I have no problem with Stalin and Hitler killing each others followers--I think we made a mistake stopping them. We shouldn't have chosen sides.

Jefferson was obviously wrong, but not for reasons that would have been easiily discernible to him at the time. One wishes he'd done the difficult thinking though and arrived at a different answer than he did.

OJ:
"but you advocate [for abortion] readily enough."

No, I don't.

At the risk of changing the subject, you say there is no moral case to be made for abortion.

No moral case ever, under any circumstances?

Harry - If your asking what did the Church do to help him, that is laughable. The Church, like imperfect men such as Jefferson, almost always acts in its own self interest. Carter is a rare exception who would sacrifice his wealth for a greater good, although he may have had other sources of wealth that J. did not (you being the resident cynic should be able to answer this I would expect).
That is different than asking if the Sciptures provided moral guidance and "help" on what is right - which they obviously do. But moral hyprocrisy is by far the rule rather than the exception and I don't think OJ would argue otherwise. The point is, isn't it better to have a society based on a set of ideals that maybe no human can live up to (including J.) than having everyone answer to their own conscience/rationality?
SV

Harry - Couldn't help myself and just found this on NPR's website "Carter was neither a romantic or idealist; in fact, his decision to emancipate his slaves was as much an economic decision as it was an ethical one. As early as the 1770s, he and his wife had deduced that there were easier ways to turn a buck. The Carters could reap more profit by freeing the slaves and renting out the land to them"

Sounds likethat old self-interest/rationality thing again. :)

SV

SV:
I think Harry's point is that the Church's themselves provided no moral guidance on the issue, or at least none usable. If all, or even most, churches had been abolitionist, then religion would have aided Jefferson.

However, just as many (or more, depending on where you came from) churches were pro- as anti-slavery.

Making religion no better than a coin toss in looking for moral guidance on the issue.

Jeff:

That's correct. Slavery was not a moral issue.

Jeff:

When carrying a baby to term would kill the mother then abortion is morally justified. She need not die that it might live. That's a balancing of two lives, where one must end.

What about if the pregnancy is the result of rape/incest?

Though incredibly rare, those are tough calls--itt seems best not to create an additional innocent victim though.

Seems? That is hardly decisive. "Seems" is nearly useless as far as moral guidance goes.

Not that it really matters how common it is, but the last number I heard was about 32,000/year. Given the size of the population, not common, but not incredibly rare, either.

Have you spoken to any slaves about the morality of slavery? Perhaps their point of view is worth taking into consideration.

Jeff:

Far rarer than that. In fact, studies show pregnancy almost never follows rape.

I've spoken to many descendants of slaves and they're uniformly happy to be Americans rather than Africans. Check migration numbers some time.

OJ:
Slaves. Not descendants of slaves. Perhaps the survivors of the Middle Crossing (I hope I have that term right) would have had a fairly firm idea about the morality of slavery. Unfortunately, you wouldn't get an opinion from the rest.

I suppose you would put them down as undecided.

As far as pregnancy following rape, I am sure it is every bit as common as pregnancy following any other act of intercourse. How could it not be?

But never mind the numbers. Whether one or 32,000, the question remains for you to answer.

"best not to create an additional innocent victim though.
"

So, you find adding to the the suffering of one the innocent victims preferable to an abortion.

Which is a morally defendable point of view.

However, the contrary position is also morally defendable. And the view of the rape victim is just as important as the view of the slave.

I don't care to debate which one is "right." However, your assertion that there is no moral case for abortion is wrong.

Suffering is less morally offensive than killing, by any equation you use. That's why slavery is not immoral per se too. Enslaving those you're morally entitled to kill is an improvement.

As assistant to Dr. E.A. Foster on the Jefferson-Hemings DNA Study I can assure the reader that the DNA DID NOT prove ANY Thomas Jefferson parentage of Sally Hemings's children.

The long standing claim of scandelous reporter,James Callender, was proven WRONG by the DNA test, there was NO DNA match of Jefferson/Woodson. The ONE descendant of Sally Hemings did indicate a match from SOME Jefferson DNA, but NOT specifically that of Thomas......DNA DOES NOT identify individuals by GIVEN names. Since only ONE Hemings descendant was found "at that time" to represent Sally's blood, the media and even a Monticello study board concluded it MUST have been THOMAS. To this very day the Hemings descendants REFUSE to gather DNA from another Hemings male source, William Hemings. WHY would they and Dan Jordan, Monticello President, (who said to me, DON'T PRESSURE THEM), REFUSE to move forward on VALUABLE DNA? He says he is open to receive research on the topic but where is his interest in securing it? I personally DO NOT believe we would find a match and possibly they all fear the same thing. It would CRUSH several agendas.

In my opinion, the support that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello owners), gives to this misevaluation and assessment,the more the public is confused. Don't we normally go to the source of subject research such as Monticello for Jefferson, and BELIEVE THEM? After all, don't they have all the research material, Jefferson specialists, etc? I URGE all Americans and world citizens NOT to fall for this.

Our earlier name was, Thomas Jefferson Foundation and they sued us in court and required that we change our title. Within days they DROPPED "MEMORIAL" from their title, thus they become our former title, Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Is this a sign of "memoralizing Thomas Jefferson?"

That was the reason for my involvment in assisting in forming the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society www.tjheritage.org)(a second opinion was required), which only financially supported 13 independent scholars, top blue ribbon, full professors. Their independent study was much different than the Monticello study, basically the work of in-house EMPLOYEES reporting to their employer, Dr. Daniel Jordan, Monticello President. The Scholars Commission Report took the in-house Monticello Report to task on several occasions and found NO proof of the Thomas Jefferson charges, heaped upon him.

President Jordan signed off on their report (Chaired by Diane Swann-Wright, an African-American, hired to research ORAL history at Monticello),finding of Jefferson probably not only fathered one Hemings child but probably ALL. Think about that......there was NO test of ANY Hemings except ONE.....HOW could this man make such an outrageous statement? If he wants to prove this ALL statement, why does he not ask the Hemings for permission to test William Hemings (at least that would bring the total to two to be tested)....what is he and the Hemings afraid of?

It must be reported here that their report acknowledges African-American input to the report and we also must note that Ms. Swann-Wright is in charge of the Getting Word Project there and on that Monticello board are ten prominent African-Americans which includes NAACP Chairman, Julian Bond (see the Monticello web page for their names). Mr. Bond also teaches history at the University of Virginia where history professor, Peter Onuf (sponsored chair of Monticello), frequently misrepresents Mr. Jefferson, his latest: "Siting Jefferson," He references the slave issue with Jefferson and those he released and flat out states (this is the Monticello supported UVA professor), "...and that those few....INCLUDING HIS CHILDREN WITH SALLY HEMINGS and had strong personal claims on his solicitude, we begin to suspect that JEFFERSON HIMSELF IS THE PROBLEM." The caps are mine!

We had another Professor Joseph Ellis (an admitted liar (recall the Boston Globe expose)to touting his NON Vietnam service and other personal history lies (see my web page www.angelfire.com/va/TJTruth), who, in my opinion, also misled the public on several occasions in Nature Journal, USNWR, his own book, "Founding Brother", the Library of Congress book, "Thomas Jefferson, Genius of Liberty." He had NO PROOF to much of what he claims. These professors are in positions to cast bad impressions with unproven statements about Mr. Jefferson. Do you have a child in high school or college listening to them or other like professors? Please ask Monticello, the UVA or the Library of Congress where the proof is and why do they put this garbage out. Where are the letters of protest to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello), the UVA President, PBS, Biography, etc.......I have sent my complaints.....they well know MY thoughts on their participation of this politically correct, historical revisionism
on Mr. Jefferson and also other founding fathers who owned slaves. I suppose I must answer my own question: the public does not know of the facts of the mishandeling of this fiasco as I do. Now that you know it....go into action! It's your country's history and the future of your children's history that is being rewritten and manipulated.

I urge readers to read Dr. Ken Wallenborn's Minority Report (www.tjheritage.org), which was SURPRESSED and DELETED from their final release. He and two other Monticello Guides immediately RESIGNED at Monticello and joined the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society board. You may also read of much more INSIDE information surrounding this amateurish DNA Study and those associated with it. Several agendas abound and our book, reviewed on our web page, "The Jefferson-Hemings Myth, An American Travesty" will enlighten the reader. There is also a link to the Scholars Commission Report there......the hard back printed version is nearing completion.

The media giants, PBS Frontline and A&E Biography decided that the reader or viewer DID NOT need to hear "my side" of the controversy when they ran programs on Sally Hemings WITHOUT my long recorded interviews with them. The Washington Post continued to run slanted and biased stories until I complained to their Ombudsman who "blasted" them exposing them by a long exposure article of them by name in their own newspaper.

Herbert Barger
Jefferson Family Historian
herbar@comcast.net