The 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?
Forgotwhoiam
Ouch! What did I say to generate so much anger from you. I agree with your comments.
My point is that I am suspicious of Mr. Esdaile’s motives. I do think that using slavery, which ended over 150 years ago, is just a method of perpetuating “white guilt” of which I do not have.
Minorities say we must heal past wrongs, etc. One can either ignore that or try to provide a forum for discussion.
You are absolutely correct that the Constitution provides free speech and minorities are not entitled to special treatment, etc.
However, the government is so bloated with corrupt politicians and abuse of power, the politicians will do or say anything to get votes. Think this is why they so quickly agreed to Mr. Esdaile’s ridiculous demands.
Roydenoral
THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY DEGREE OF DOMINION OF THE MINORITY.
THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A BOOK OF ETIQUETTE.
Excuse me. The Founders provided free Americans with freedom of speech, press and assembly, understanding the natural or God-given right to freedom of thought.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and Americans can be as racist as they choose.
The vote is majority rule. Majority rule defines a public vote. The majority can rule racism if it wants to.
The American thesis is freedom and self-reliance.
People have to adapt to and live with the consequences of freedom.
The Constitution DID NOT establish any degree of dominion of the minority.
Racism is constitutional and legal.
False guilt is what minorities use against Americans.
The government has no authority to dictate thought. The government shall leave beauty in the “eye of the beholder.” We check the weather when we leave the house. We choose a wife. We choose a career with specific and particular clients. We choose our neighborhood. It’s all discrimination. It’s all constitutional. It’s all good. Jefferson unofficially declared a SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE including how we religiously pursue our morality, etiquette, manners, etc.
It is the duty and responsibility of free individuals to “pursue happiness” and provide for themselves.
It is not mandated by the Constitution, to be the responsibility of government, to assure competitive advantage in education, employment, “Fair Housing,” or any other aspect of the free life of any individual.
Non-discrimination is dictatorship. Social engineering is a fundamental principle in the Communist Manifesto. The first step of freedom is discrimination. Racism is discrimination.
The Founders NEVER mandated that people had to enjoy the SPEECH, THOUGHTS or FREEDOM of another. The Founders NEVER mandated the character of discrimination, including the discrimination of racism.
The Founders did mandate that people obey statutes and common laws against murder, theft, assault, battery, fraud, vandalism, damage, slavery, etc.
forgotwhoiam:
Freedom (of Speech) was there if you were a white patriot (male). And of course the pursuit of happiness was possible for the self declared free – but nobody else. The founding farhers knew what they were doing but still implemented something that they knew was wrong and couldn’t possibly work. What right did the founding fathers have to make these claims for a minority of the population? It was by Right of Power and Coup Etat and complete disregard for 500,000 slaves. It was disgusting.
You are still trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole. Einstein said insanity is “doing the same experiment again and expecting different results”. He was right of course except when it comes to DOI and the Constitution. That is something no one is allowed to think independently about.
All the DOI did was lay the foundations for the American Civil War. This created the America the Founding fathers really wanted and which was originally opposed by two would be States only.
I can’t think of any other country that fought any war resembling the carnage suffered by Americans during the Civil War. Other countries were rid of slavery without a Call to Arms.
It was all a mistake of huge proportions. And this is what is so difficult to admit. Some will never admit these errors no matter what evidence is presented. That is their problem.
You certainly have forgotwhoyouwere if you ever knewwhereyouwere in the first place. That is the real travesty. You all know it was wrong yet you persist in trying to defend it.
ninianpeckitt wrote: “I can’t think of any other country that fought any war resembling the carnage suffered by Americans during the Civil War.”
I guess you forgot about your own English Civil War which lasted more than twice as many years as our Civil War and ended with the beheading of your monarch, Charles I.
davidm2575:
No Ive not forgotten Charles I. He didn’t make declaration of freedom and liberty and equality of man. The Founding Father’s did and only pretended to implement it. That’s my objection.
ninianpeckitt wrote: “He didn’t make declaration of freedom and liberty and equality of man. The Founding Father’s did and only pretended to implement it. That’s my objection.”
The word “equality” today does not mean the same thing as it meant back then. Jefferson never pretended that the races were “equal.” He wrote about the racial differences quite candidly. He spoke about how blacks were lazy and unmotivated, yet also praised them for being gifted in music and song. It remained questionable in his mind whether blacks could become civilized and make their way in civilized society. There certainly were exceptions in his mind because Jefferson did free some of his slaves, after educating them and giving them land and money when they left to make their own way. And gender too was not considered “equal.” These are more modern day inventions and depart from his theme of “all men are created equal.” Today people read that and interpret it differently from what was in Jefferson’s mind when he penned it. Today some think they are fulfilling his dream of equality, but they are doing no such thing. Forcing equality where it does not exist never leads to liberty. It leads to civil unrest and violence, and that is what we are observing now.
davidm2575:
People thought the earth was flat. It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now. People thought the sun orbited the earth. It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.
As far as truth liberty and freedom with all men being born equal it was an ideal true then and true today. But something else known to be wrong to the founding fathers was implimented. This is what is unacceptable and it was the recipe for a bloody civil war.
davidm2575: The founding fathers made freedom, liberty and equality the cornerstone of the USA and then denied it to 500,000 people knowing it was wrong.
That’s hipocrisy.
ninny – you need to learn to spell hipocracy. That is not how it is spelled on either side of the pond.
ninianpeckitt – the founding fathers had the same rights to do what ever they did as Henry VIII had to chop off the head of Ann Boylyn or Cromwell to chop off the head of Charles I.
Paul C Schulte:
The founding fathets took control in a Coup Etat and took action as they saw fit.
But calling this Freedom and Liberty is a different matter. It remains a nonsense in any language
ninianpeckitt – coup d’tat. What the hell are you talking about?
David, you have a valid point. What I meant about the culture of the 17th century is that slavery was legal and not everyone opposed it. Even so, the founders saw it as wrong. This is to their credit.
Agree with what you say about reading what was actually written by the founders. Too many people just follow fanatics or will read something and comment “well, that is what he wrote, but what he really meant was……”
Roydenoral – the founders found the importation of slaves to be wrong and so there was a cut-off date. Some founders found it wrong (usually from the North) and some did not (usually from the South).
Wow. This article was about removing the names of Presidents Jefferson and Jackson from a Democratic fund raiser in Connecticut. How quickly it devolved into name calling and arguments about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
None of us can know what was in the hearts and minds of these men. To do that we would have to be able to experience the culture of the 17th century and this is not possible. All we can do is go by what they said and what they wrote. To try and infer what they said from a 21st century cultural perspective is simply impossible.
It seems more appropriate to look at what is going on currently. Mr Esdaile of the NAACP said removing the names of these Presidents would “heal the wounds of racism” and “right the wrongs of the past.”. These statements are patently absurd. The only way to achieve those objectives is to study the past and to learn from it.
I wonder what Mr. Esdaile’s actual motives are? Slavery ended in America over 150 years ago. Nothing can right that wrong.
An argument can certainly be made for on-going racism in America. But this is not solely directed toward black people. What about Hispanics, Aisians, Indians, etc? It seems to me that the way to “heal the wounds” and “right the wrongs” is to have meaningful dialog among the various races in our country.
However, with political correctness run amok, many fear they will be labeled “racist” if they attempt to do this. So where do we go from here? Any legitimate historian would say that white-washing history is not the way to resolve the problems of the past.
Roydenoral wrote: “None of us can know what was in the hearts and minds of these men. To do that we would have to be able to experience the culture of the 17th century and this is not possible.”
It’s not really true that we cannot know what was in the hearts and minds of these men. They left us a plethora of writings. Students of history can come to understand what they thought and felt about issues. The problem is that most people do not take the time to go and read everything they wrote. They go off cliff notes or regurgitated history that has an ulterior motive.
Roydenoral – what you fail to understand is that only blacks suffer from racism. And only they can say what will heal them.
Mr. Pickett … you are still here. Why? You said you were all done with us…yet here you are. Your criticism of our westard expansion pales beside those of Brithish colonialism. Your aserted Irish heritage says more about you than anything I could…you remian the typical Brit-Euro critic who must justify their own malfeasence by comparison when no comparision exists. De Valera and the IRA…really? That’s what you consider typical Irish response? We all have flaws, I suggest you dwell on yours not ours. That said, carry on….
Aridog: No I have finished all I have to say on the subject at hand. I don’t really argue my case you are doing this for me.
The very fact we are still able to speak out against our government proves David correct.
davidm2575
you really hate actual history, don’t you?
Mr schulte
You need to get back to basic a, b, c. learning. You shouldn’t tell others to read when you demonstrate a great ability to misread everything. Thus lets go back to the alphabet for us.
Geez they didn’t, I don’t know kidnap families, mutilate and enslave anyone. Don’t know what the story is other than your propaganda for our founding masters lost for once. Yay!!!!
Let’s see.
Quite literally, what made America “great” as in larger was the westward conquest, clearing the land for settlement and free enterprise.
What made America great was freedom, free enterprise without interference by government, innovation and wealth creation such as that accomplished by the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison et al.
What made America literally larger as in “greater” were decisive actions such as the Louisiana Purchase, the Alamo, the Indian Wars after General Custer and the purchase of Alaska.
Completely false and deliberately fraudulent revisionist history, as the rabid frothing of apologists and those “brain dead” purveyors of indoctrination dogma, is voluminous and deep here.
The only thing accomplished by circumvention of the legal immigration process, illegal immigration, affirmative action, regulation as “central planning,” redistribution and the welfare state’s “multiculturalism” or “Balkanization” are the punitive confiscatory taxation of American dollars from American citizens for over a century and the retarding of free markets.
There is a lot of payback due.
It’s time to pay the piper.
Reblogged this on jdoliverdotcom.
Finally! I made that same case to you a few weeks back and it has finally sunk in to your head. If you want to challenge that then you will find it in the archives. Thanks.
“Olly: What’s the over/under on you having any real insight on the issues our society face.”
If you don’t consider pointing out to ninianpeckitt that he omits any consideration for cultural transformation; you know Isaac, that process a nation undergoes when a vision is developed for a country (DoI) and the failures and successes they experience as they work towards that vision? Then I would say pretty thin. Thanks for asking.
Olly:
So my argument is now accepted. I havent failed after all.
1776 was just the start of freedom and liberty, rather than its deliverance. as I have been advocating all along.
Thank you gentlemen. I rest my case.
1776 was the start of a war. Buy the damn book I keep telling you to buy. Then read it. Then get back to us.
To Paul C.Schulte:
Please provide proof that Wikipedia is 50% wrong
I. Annie … I am NOT dismissing the contributions of all those you mention, in fact I married one from one of your minority groups. However, I grow very tired of being advised of our errors, by purported antecedents, all of which we all know very well and is no revelation what-so-ever. It’s not like they’ve done all that well for themselves over the past 120 years or so.
Who makes up the modern day American? Europeans mostly, Native Americans and Africans. Now we have larger representations of Asians and Latinos. We may have developed a unique identity, but we can’t dismiss influences and contributions from the various ethnic groups. That is precisely what made America great.
I. Anie: Hear Hear !
ninianpeckitt … Loyalists? Does being an officer in Geo Washinton’s Continental Army count? His offspring served in the Union Army in the Civil War as well. That man’s saber & carbine hangs over my desk as I type. My ancestors on one side came here from Ireland, roughly in 1735, to get away from and not to re-join England. The rest came from Ireland via Canada roughly in 1890…None wanted anything to do with the crown. None were rich nor entitled.
I apologize for my insult earlier, however, understand that I get very weary of Brits and Europeans advising me on the nature, character, and history of the United States. I’ve heard better criticism from Koreans and Viets.
I’m half Irish that’s why I have an Irish name. My uncle was president De valera”s body guard in the Irish Secret Service. I had other uncles (brothers) in the IRA and also in the British Army who would have killed each other in the 1920s.
This discussion is not about really about the British. It’s about how to make things work. If I provoke an argument it is to reveal the truth. Whatever that means.
Aridog: Your comment to ninian is gratuitously uncivil and adds nothing to the discussion. I personally don’t mind a little churlishness in debate, as long as it makes a point. Your comment is nothing more than a mean spirited attack. And it’s weak.
Paul C. Shulte: Hijacking another poster identity should get you banned from this blog. It demonstrates an egregious lack of integrity. Besides, you have cited Wikipedia in the past. So there. So much for will.
Palsy Schultze – since you have hijacked my name you have not taken the high ground. And what makes you think I hijacked you? Little egotistical there.
Olly: What’s the over/under on you having any real insight on the issues our society face.
Inga: “Interesting that David defends slavery against the charge of being a tremendous evil.”
Interesting but not surprising.
Patsy Schultze:
Yes it is interesting. I think that the “good American concepts” are held dearly and rightly so.
But when some of it doesn’t fit this political equation it is tweaked in order to give the right answer, although the numbers remain the same. I am just asking that readers think about these things.
This hopefully will result in constructive criticism as democracy develops to meet the challenge of subversive elements that wish to destroy western democracy
I think I have discussed this now to the point of saturation.
Despite what some of you may think, I want to see America and Democracy succeed.
If I have encouraged any original thinking with some of the provocative arguments made, then it has been worthwhile.