Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson Dropped From Democratic Events

225px-Thomas_Jefferson_by_Rembrandt_Peale,_1800170px-Andrew_JacksonThe Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinners are famous events for the state Democratic Party in Connecticut. However, as part of the backlash against historical figures who owned slaves, the NAACP demanded that both names be stripped away from the dinner and the state Democratic Party agreed.

Nick Balletto, the party’s first-year chairman, said that he hoped other states would follow suit and do “the right thing.” Some may disagree with that assessment.

First, I have been a long critic of Jackson who is legitimately blamed for the Trail of Tears and other atrocities against Native Americans. He is also viewed as the father of the patronage system. He also openly challenged the authority of the Supreme Court to restrain him. It has always astonished me that Democratic Party embraced such an abusive figure as Jackson. However, Jefferson is a founding father who is credited not only with the Declaration of Independence but key rights like those of religious freedoms.

Second, stripping away references to all slave owners would wipe out many if not most of the framers. Slavery was a tremendous evil at the time and those framers with slaves are legitimately criticized for calling for political and social rights while enslaving other human beings. They were flawed figures but they were also the creators of a system that allowed for not only the evolution of rights but the ultimate rejection of slavery.

Scot X. Esdaile, the head of Connecticut’s NAACP, insisted that only stripping away such names can heal the wounds of racism and that the move of the Democratic Party was “making the symbolic first step and striving to right the wrongs of the past . . . You can’t right all the wrongs, but I think it’s a symbolic gesture of our support for their party.”

Ironically, Jefferson was one of the most active in seeking to curtail slavery. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson originally sought to criticize England for forcing the slave trade on the colonies but it was taken out of the draft. In 1778, Jefferson led the effort to ban the importation of slaves into Virginia and as President fought against the slave trade. In 1784 Jefferson unsuccessfully proposed federal legislation banning slavery in the New Territories of the North and South after 1800. He wrote about the corrupting influence of slavery. In other words, his story is a complex one and captures a generation that was moving at least in part toward the emancipation of slaves.

What do you think?

314 thoughts on “Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson Dropped From Democratic Events”

  1. My comment on the principal cause of the civil war. One can find it in the constitution of the Confederate States of America. It was more complicated than simply slavery. It was about an amendment of the US constitution which would prevent the US Congress to ever abolish the right to own slaves in all states, especially the “new” slave states. That was an article of the CSA constitution. No CSA state nor the CSA Congress could pass legislation which abolished chattel slavery in the CSA.
    To keep border states in the US the US Congress passed a similar amendment (I seem to remember a day or a few days before Lincoln was sworn in) which, however, was never ratified by enough US states.

  2. My information about Lord Dunmore and his proclamation comes from “Rough Crossing” by Simon Schama. I am surprised by the flood of responses. What is overlooked in the brouhaha is that this proclamation had a far broader effect on the war than merely slaves crossing into the British camps. It triggered runaways which never got to the British lines. It triggered individual actions against plantations by runaway slaves.
    The issue of slaves sent to Jamaica and St. Augustine is badly represented by critics. These were mostly still slaves at the time who were shipped with their owners to Jamaica and St. Augustine. The British did not treat their black soldiers too well after the war was over. A few made it to London. Another few were sent to Nova Scotia.

  3. “But Tocqueville did prescribe some solutions. He hoped that those having read his prescient book would come to understand that the defects of modern democracy require great attention and careful management. Specifically, he hoped, we would strive “to preserve for the individual the little independence, force, and originality” that remains to him.

    In other words, when looking at any given policy, our lawmakers might look not at the benefits for their home district, or vainly calculate attention from the next media hit, but rather look at what any given policy proposal’s long-term effect will be on securing freedom and rights. Making individuals stronger, more independent, more able to resist the tyranny of the majority and of a constantly growing administrative state is the goal.”

    I asked you if you had read Democracy in America and you conveniently dodged the question. Now it doesn’t even matter. You keep your collective freedom over there and we’ll continue to do our best at ridding this republic of that scourge mentality.

  4. You appear to advocating a Trotskyist System of control or as system of Anarchy with the abolishion of government. Is that how you see this working. It seems to me your ideas will have to be established by force? And if so who does this promote individual freedom? It promotes YOUR individual freedom but no one else’s. And if so how is this individual freedom for all? You see the paradox? What you are saying is physically impossible.

    I don’t advocate a Trotskyist system of control at all, ninian.

    What I do advocate is a limited federal government held by restraints, State governments held by restraints and the sovereigns, i.e. the citizens, making up the entire country as a Republic altogether. To allow an individual, much more one who’s foreign, to rule the lands that aren’t entirely his repeats the very history we know of. Stalin wasn’t Russian. He was Georgian yet he terrorized Russia with his grand views. Hitler was an Austrian Jew who became the Fuehrer of Nazi Germany and completely deluded the German people into a war that was not entirely necessary.

    I don’t agree with democracy as the final product of a stable government but it is what we have today, much better than a monarchy. Britain has had a monarchy for centuries and absolute power corrupted. Kings, who ruled by “divine right”, laid down laws that hurt the citizenry. They also laid down laws against those who did not believe according to the religion of the country. They also committed great sins against maids, or daughters of other people, for their own sexual gratification.

    Also, today, your Queen is not British. She’s Prussian. She’s a foreigner who became Queen “by divine right” because of her marriage to King George. Also, in the past few months, the Rotterham sex scandal rocked the British world and everywhere else. How can you, yourself, allow a sovereign Queen to continue ruling as the elite when she has *done nothing* to curb the Pakistani sex gangs from grooming very underaged British white girls and boys? Hmm? Cops can’t arrest them because it’s too racist to arrest an “Asian”. In collective freedom, a monarchy has to be abolished in order for everyone to be collectively free.

    The point, ninian, is that I don’t believe that one individual should rule. I believe that government is best held by everyone, capable of a smart sound mind, and is willing to have the honest desire to lead the country toward a better path rather than a destructive one that dooms everyone else. I would rather that majoritarian votes be thrown out and allow everyone to hold their own beliefs, convictions, and be upheld by laws that actually have everything to do with restraining from committing evil deeds, from defrauding one another, from hurting one another through malicious means.

    Establishing ideas by force require actions that can hurt people. Yes, the American government has hurt Indians. They have hurt minorities. They have buried people under red tape, unable to get out. So have monarchies. So have the Catholic Church. So has any other religion.

    The difference between establishing ideas by force and having an idea for yourself is that the idea for yourself isn’t spread. It can be discussed but it cannot be forced. For instance, I believe that polygamy can be done correctly if the man has money, has the proper means to marry his wives, and has the long-term commitment to stick to them. But if a man fails in all these and can afford only one, then he must be adhered to this way for the benefit of both sexes, not just his own. Just like Quanah Parker could afford his wives because he was wealthy and had connections with the White man. Comanches were polygynous by nature but the wealthy were better off marrying more wives than those who were poorer. However, Quanah met many obstacles in his life, such as the Comanches being cruel to him for having White blood in him, the religious authorities of the Catholic Church attempting to force him to believe in their catechism which required that Quanah reject all but the first wife.

    Both individual freedom and collective freedom have the means to arm itself and force people to accept ideas. Collective freedom also has a paradox of its own. How can the collectively free share their ideas with those who individually don’t believe? The collective, by the majority, can force their ideas down the individual’s throat, attempting to change that person for their own benefit. How can the collective freedom be for all if individuals don’t share the same sentiment? Two can play this game, ninian.

    I believe in my own individual freedom because I believe in things that I believe in. I know I don’t stand with the majority. I know I won’t gain so many friends in a lifetime. I know I won’t ever be that popular among people because of what I believe. I know that I won’t ever be enshrined somewhere in a statue, written in history books, or remarked often of what I did. But I know what will happen in regards to my individual freedom. I was free the day I was born and the day I died. The difference is, I don’t believe in forcing my ideas down people’s throats. If they don’t approve of polygamy, that’s acceptable. I understand. But if they don’t approve of polygamy, would they say the same? I don’t know but I do know that everyone will do is natural to them.

    I’ve said all that is necessary, ninian. You’re so set in your ways so do try not to pick on me or anyone else to continue the argument. Otherwise, by nature, you’re actually imposing your argument, or set of ideas, upon others by force. Like I said, ninian… Everyone’s different. There’s billions of people on this planet. Some may share the same sentiment as you but many will not.

    You want to win this argument? Submit your argument to the academics, let it be held by peer review. If it is critically applauded with acclaim and accolades, it will make strides in this world. If it does not and it fails, the consensus disagrees with you.

    1. Texan Polygynist:
      It is clear that there are some things you believe are true and some aren’t.

      ● No proof that Hitler was Jewish
      ● UK Queen was born in Mayfair London. Her home is now a Chinese Restaurant and it doesn’t make her Chinese either. The Queens mother was Scottish. Her father George VI was born at York Cottage in England. George Washington’s roots were from the North of England but he wasn’t English. He was born in America.

      ● The Queen has no political power and does not rule. She is a “rubber stamp” of a democratic parliament and it has been like this since the execution of Charles I in 1649.

      ● Land ownership. The US committed genocide against the Indians and seized lands. All countries have behaved badly. And I agree with your position on this. And all humans in the USA are migrants if we go back far enough. But America enshrined noble ideals about freedom and I am arguing that these things were not delivered and the Founding Father’s knew they couldn’t be delivered.

      I understand for objection to government. But it seems to me that you are promoting an anarchial alternative and to date no anarchic society has been successful. Countries don’t and can’t work this way.

      You have demonstrated the incompaibility of the 2 freedoms and agree with my argument. But collective freedom has to be established in a country. That’s how countries work.

      Everybody is different and has their own beliefs. That’s true. But when a country is organised thsee beliefs have to be collective. And that means cooperation and facilitation. Hence the issues over marriage.

      I can submit arguments to all sorts of places as you can but my fear is still the potential for hijacking a country by a small faction of self believers. This has always led to disaster.

      Why am I interested? Because events in America can affect events globally.

      So please be careful what you vote for….

  5. Olly: Voting is an example of the means to Collective Freedom. It implies collaboration and cooperation to form government. And you know exactly what I am talking about.

    The issue of felons is interesting. If I remember recently the European Court ruled I think this year that prisoners be allowed to vote and to deny them this is to deny them their human rights.

    So if this is denied in the USA they aren’t really free then. Neither Individually nor Collectively….

    You see the tangle you are getting into with your argument. You cant make it fit because it doesn’t.

    Incidentally the USA has more incarcerated prisoners than any other country.

  6. Paul,
    I believe we have done all we can here. He has his “theory” and he’s standing by it regardless of the facts.

  7. ninian,
    LOL, yet, as a nation, we EXIST! So much for that theory of yours.

    We will cease to exist as a nation IF we continue to allow the COLLECTIVE to destroy what remains of INDIVIDUAL rights.

    Now, you have proven yourself to be either uninformed on OUR system of government or worse, willfully ignorant. Either way, you have exhausted whatever credibility you had when you entered this blog and I’ll pray for your “students” as they try to reconcile reality with whatever you are selling.


    1. Olly: You exist as a Nation because you have a collective Freedom based on Democracy. No country exists based on Individual Freedom, because this is impossible as cooperation is necessary to build a Nation.

      There is maybe one exception. If I remember correctly, around the time of the Spanish Civil War there was an area of a state of Anarchy in one city. That’s the nearest thing I can think of related to Individual Freedom.

Comments are closed.