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?
Texan: I have posted some references awaiting moderation.
The issue isn’t about your interpretation of history but about philosophy of what freedom and liberty really is and why that has not been achieved nor ever can be achieved in the United States.
This is something that you will not discuss and continue to change the subject with manipulation of the facts which in reality weakens your case further.
@ninian
Texan Polygynist: Civil War
Don’t take things out of context. To understand you have to read the posts
Don’t change the context either. Read David’s post again regarding your English Civil War. You said Civil War, as in referencing to the ACW with any other country. David referred to your English Civil War that led to the execution of Charles I.
To Texan: you have finally lost me. I haven’t a clue what you are talking about now. I have requested you answer questions on freedom and liberty
References galore where? I don’t see links to sources, etc.
I have presented two sources that have everything to do with the Confederate battle flag but not the reason behind the Civil War. Let me show you the Carolina Secession papers: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/south-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/
“Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
Do you know what the Constitutional Compact is? Here: http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
“1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
What the general government did was violate the Compact. They did not follow the Statutes Carolina imposed as a State. Each State were independent nations, held together by a Compact. Today, the United State are 50 nations held together by the DoI and the Constitution, and State Constitutions (separate for the State only). The institution of slavery was rejected by the North though they had to return slaves back to the South. Slavery was not the issue. The issue here is “federal usurpation of power”. What did Thomas Jefferson say in the Kentucky Resolutions 1798 himself?
“by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force”
It means that if the general government had violated, or overreached in its boundaries set by the States, its authoritative force is null and void. In essence, the general government, i.e. the Federal Government, is principally supposed to be submissive to all the States, not the other way around!
To be sovereign is to be chief over all. Today, you have a Federal government that’s sovereign and all the States are submissive to the Federal government. The compact was null and void already before the Civil War began. When the war ended, the Republicans believed the South had no constitutional grounds for continuing their States rights because they were the losers. So they tried to impose a military occupation upon the South, i.e. the Presidential Reconstruction and Congressional Reconstruction (wiki those). The Republicans tried to intimidate, coerce, and force the South to accept Northern traditions, which brought about the KKK, a reaction to the intimidation by Republicans.
So ninian… Need more sources?
EDIT: “. According to you, you said you knew of no other country that had no civil war.” —> “. According to you, you said you knew of no other country that had a civil war.”
This needs to be changed before any confusion arises.
Texan Polygynist: Civil War
Don’t take things out of context. To understand you have to read the posts
Facts does not make it facts if there are no sources, or credible evidence. Ninian, if you consider yourself an “expert historian”, do provide your sources. By sources, I mean your resources, or credible evidence, that you have compiled to argue your claim.
You do realize that to make a claim, it must have a foundation of supporting arguments that help make the claim valid, or plausible? You made numerous claims. There have been numerous requests to ask you for sources. Where are they?
In fact, you say, fact, fact, fact but you don’t bother to provide those sources. I say sources time and again, hoping your subconscious would notice. Maybe, maybe not.
Let me show you one error you made. According to you, you said you knew of no other country that had no civil war. David responded by stating your country had what was called the English Civil War. You “factually” stated that you knew of no other country that had a civil war; with David’s rebuttal, he broke your “fact” in two.
Now… fess up all your sources. That’s how facts are verified. You wanted to share your perspective. No need to hold up all those sources in your sleeves. In fact, if you wished to share your discovery of a history that we never knew of, why hide ’em? It’s best to share!
Texan Polygynist:
You are being deliberately evasive. I have presented the facts with references galore. You have presented nothing.
@Roydenoral I prefer the non-revisionist history because that’s the true one. if I was taught revisionist history, oh God help me! That’s the problem I’m having with people like ninian.
Ninian’s logic regarding history is like the type of YouTuber you come across who goes around saying, the Holocaust is a hoax! Why? Let me tell you something, come closer. It’s because the Jews manufactured the whole thing. They are a part of the Zionist movement. Right now, those Zionist Jews are in everything: from Hollywood, the media, in booking houses, in the White House, the legislative branches, and in every State Government. They run them as Marranos (or conversos in Spanish, which is honestly improperly used, but let’s get on with it) and pretend to be whoever they want. Those Jews want to destroy everyone. They also want to enslave everyone. In doing so, they promote homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, and so on. They are filthy as the next rat but they are… everywhere! No! I swear it is true! It is true! I can prove it via links of websites where there’s no credible sources but it is true! Oh it is!
And that’s how I see it on ninian’s perspective. As asinine as the Zionist Jew conspiracy movement it is, every “historian” comes with the problem of not being non-biased. If one were to review non-revisionist history, one had to look at it from a perspective with a neutral bias. To be biased, having confirmation bias (or having heard from somewhere then accepting it as truth), or believing that the other side is so wrong that a corrective lecture is in place is not an excellent tool to determine, understand, or analyze history. A true historian is someone who would look at history, realize, “Oh. My country lost at this one. I see… How?” Not… “Oh! What a great victorious defeat! We won! Oh yes, we won!”
I had to start something out about that last statement. There was this Russian man, on a Napoléonic wargaming thread, who claimed that Austerlitz in Napoléon’s campaign toward Russia was a victorious defeat. What he did not understand that it was an oxymoron. How can he be truly happy about a “victorious defeat” when the Russians lost Austerlitz? It’s sort of like being defeated there, running off and smiling happily, “We lost! Oh we lost! Sweet sweet defeat!” Haha.
There’s no doubt we’ll run into “historians” like these because they believe whatever is coming to them and sounds really good. Sometimes, the history we read really pains us and makes us not want to accept it, even if it’s non-revisionist, but that’s just the way it is. Life’s full of mistakes, surprises, and successes. It’s how people make history.
Texan Polygynist: You are challenging the postings about without any evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence that this is revisionary. We only have your word on that.
Your position is one of faith.
My position is one of verified facts. I have asked for postings to disprove the facts I posted and there have been none.
“Despots of the past tyrannized through blood and iron. But the new breed of democratic despotism “does not proceed in this way; it leaves the body and goes straight for the soul.”
That is, the majority reaches into citizens’ minds and hearts. It breaks citizens’ will to resist, to question its authority, and to think for themselves. The majority’s moral power makes individuals internally ashamed to contradict it, which in effect silences them, and this silencing culminates in a cessation of thinking. And we see this happen almost daily: to stand against the majority is to ruin yourself.”
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/29/born-225-years-ago-tocqueville-predicted-the-tyranny-of-the-majority-in-our-modern-world/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook
Paul Schultze: Texas Polygynist – I said that the War of Northern Aggression was fought over political power and money. Is there any part of that you disagree with?
I don’t disagree over the the title of the Civil War as the “Northern Aggression”, neither the part of political power. As for money, from what I’m reading over about money at college, money wasn’t a huge factor.
Perhaps I should look into the aspect of monies as part of the Northern Aggression; primarily, the instructor I have right now taught about Civil War, the social behavior (which emphasizes restraint), and the aspects of the differences between States and the mutual differences between the two national governments.
I have learned a lot before, during, and after that part of the course.
@ninian, you’ve confirmed yourself to be truly and incredibly misinformed. Since you’re British, focus on your own history. Revising our own history to suit your palette really sours your reputation as someone who may consider himself an “expert historian” in the field.
Texan Polygynist,
I am impressed with your non-revisionist view of the War of Northern Aggression or the War to prevent Southern Independence as I prefer.
Ninian,
You waffle back and forth on the issue of slavery as a cause of the aforementioned War. It clearly was not. Interesting that you did not include the Morrill Tarrif Act of 1860 in your list. You may want to look that up.
By definition a delusion is a false belief. To be delusional means one believes in something that is false. This would be you.
England has the Magna Carta which is the basis for English Common Law. The violations of English Common Law in the colonies by King George III was a basis for Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence. This is evident in his list of grievances against the King.
To Paul C. Schulte
At the beginning of the war, Lincoln prohibited his generals from freeing slaves even in captured territories. On August 30, 1861, Major General John C. Frémont, the commander of the Union Army in St. Louis, proclaimed that all slaves owned by Confederates in Missouri were free. Lincoln opposed allowing military leaders to take executive actions that were not authorized by the government, and realized that such actions could induce slaveowners in border states to oppose the Union or even start supporting the enemy. Lincoln demanded Frémont modify his order and free only slaves owned by Missourians working for the South.
So the point you are making is mischevious.
Lincoln went to war and slavery was a big issue but not the only issue. His attitude to freeing slaves was tactical.
Issues related to the Civil War. Note Slavery is at the top.
Slavery
Northwest Ordinance
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
Missouri Compromise
Tariff of 1828
Nat Turner’s slave rebellion
Nullification Crisis
The Amistad
Prigg v. Pennsylvania
Texas annexation
Mexican–American War
Wilmot Proviso
Ostend Manifesto
Manifest destiny
Underground Railroad
Compromise of 1850
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
Uncle Tom’s Cabin
Kansas–Nebraska Act
Bleeding Kansas
Caning of Charles Sumner
Dred Scott v. Sandford
The Impending Crisis of the South
Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry
1860 presidential election
Secession of Southern States
Star of the West
Corwin Amendment
Battle of Fort Sumter
ninny – if you knew US History, you would realize the list is in reverse order of occurrence.
To Olly:
No I have to disagree.
Every Society has an Elite. The unelected Elite Rules America through the power of money. The Elite remains today. Kennedy, Rockefeller, Carter, Bush, Trump etc just to name a few.
Mr. Schulte,
You seriously taught civics?
Who hired you?
ninian,
Did you eat paint chips as a child? There is NO evidence to prove “They wanted freedom with representation, but for themselves. For their Elite. They wanted the transfer of power to them.” Your entire argument is based on the fact the American society (and Founding Fathers) did not immediately live up to the self-evident truths in the DoI. Newsflash! If they had, then no DoI would have been necessary! That “elite” mentality was a British thing, not American and we still haven’t obliterated that from our society and probably never will.
What would happen in your country if tomorrow parliament declared Sharia Law to be acceptable throughout the kingdom? I ask not knowing if they already have but assuming they have not.
LOL! Yeah, George III was a saint and parliament was the tyrant. Okey Dokey. All a matter of perspective and quite frankly, it doesn’t change anything on this side of the Atlantic. Thank you for playing.
To Olly: King George III – “The Saint”
I would like to ask for verified information to conclusively demonstrate that His Majesty King George III was a tyrant.
I know he is considered as being a tyrant in the United States. But on what grounds is he guilty?
Remember he was a constitutional monarch and had no political power. He was not personally responsible for imposing the some of the lowest taxation of the time on the colonies. Laws were passed by parliament.
And I would ask you all to think for yourselves when presenting the case. It needs to be proven that he was guilty as charged as a Tyrant specifically – and that hasn’t been done. I would ask you to put prejudice aside and look at the facts.
Has there been an historical miscarriage of Justice?
I now open the floor to nominations for replacements of the existing sculptures on Mount Rushmore.
GW and TJ will be removed because they were slave owners. AL’s gone because he married into a slave-owning family. And TR is is just too tough and gruff a guy for today’s society of pansies we’ve been nurturing for the past generation or two.
Please submit your nominations below.
Paul,
If you reread my comment I never state YOU were delusional. 🙂
ninian,
Yup, declared and denied. HOWEVER, our constitution and Bill of Rights provided the vehicle to transition from that denial to acceptance. The rest of it was left up to the sinful nature of man. In many regards that nature prevailed AS EXPECTED and our sinful nature continues to thwart the recognition natural rights. Essentially, we are going in the wrong direction. This makes the Founding Fathers prescient, not hypocritical.
To Olly:
But it wasn’t really foresight. They wanted freedom with representation, but for themselves. For their Elite. They wanted the transfer of power to them. Not the people as many were excluded.
We all understand how it should have been.
But it wasn’t like that. It was a stitch-up.
We didn’t declare Freedom, Liberty and Equality; we declared the RIGHT to be free, with the RIGHT to liberty and with the RIGHT to be treated equally under the law. The transition towards the recognition of those RIGHTS for all was never expected to be accomplished by decree. Obviously AMERICA did not believe they were delivered “then” because many did not agree with those founding principles. The constitution would never have been ratified had they been required to accept those principles. This requires a cultural transformation guided by leaders committed to those principles.
The failure to accomplish this transformation in 87 years,150 years or 239 years is the result of failed leadership and quite frankly a determined effort by a constituency that believes they have a better idea. Our current failures are 100 years in the making and we will continue to devolve this republic without a return to those founding principles.
Olly:
But these rights were denied to 500,000 slaves and Native Indians. They had no rights. Slaves were property. So a State was created based on rights that were simultaneously denied. That’s my objection. You have to see it how it was – not how you wish it was.
ninny – because of the French and Indian Wars and the Revolutionary War (whatever they call it in the UK) we developed a government that did not give the same rights to Indians as freedmen. Indians had been our enemy in both wars, doing a lot of damage and killing a lot of people. For census purposes, slaves and Indians were counted as 3/5s of a freedman. The census was used for representation in Congress and was to be taken every ten years. I am sure you will find it a shock to find that England was still dealing in slaves at the same time we became a country.
To Paul C. Schulte: “we developed a government that did not give the same rights to Indians as freedmen”
Now you are just starting to tell it how it was. It was about “Freedmen” Not “Freedom”.
America was the Land of the Freedmen – not the Land of the Free.
So why isn’t it taught this way?
ninny –
Have you EVER taken an American History class or American Government class? Given your ignorance of the subject, my guess is NO. So, how do you know how the subjects are taught?
ninian,
It boils down to you having an outsider’s opinion and a non-American perspective. They did know exactly what they were doing and apparently you don’t accept the results. So what? You make the same fatal mistake as many do that want to dismiss ideas put forth 230+ years ago. The weakness of any form of government is not the form but rather the nature of the people that implement it. That principle has not changed since the beginning of time. The Founding Fathers and many of the 18th century generation understood this completely. Don’t blame the Founding Fathers for the educational failures of the progressive era.
Olly: My objection is the interpretatoon of these ideas. That it achieved
1. Freedom
2. Liberty
3. Equality
America then as now really believed these things were delivered then as now. And it simply isn’t true.
But it was a step towards this…..
I haven’t heard anything that refutes this. But I have heard lots of arguments that are simply untrue. From the king being a tyrant and having political power to the belief that America represents the pinacle of Freedom.
It isn’t remotely true.
“But what I can’t do, is save you from a self perpetuated delusion.”
ninian,
Okay, you claim you cannot save Paul from his delusion yet you won’t cease trying. THAT is delusional.
Olly: Ha ha 😊
I do believe you are right.
Though canst cure me doctor of my cold,
And caughts thyself the more by twenty fold.
Prithee take to bed and for thy future be,
First cure thyself, then come though hence and curest me.
Robert Herrick 1591-1674
Olly – I am the one who has taught US History and US Government (Civics). I am NOT delusional.
The point is ninian that it was not the documents or principles that “deceived”. The Founding Fathers that crafted them did not deceive. If they were trying to deceive then one should expect a scarcity of documentation explaining the justification for independence and how the new nation would be governed. They described in detail how their vision would not be achieved and subsequent generations have completely ignored their warnings. The Framers did not deceive us, we have deceived ourselves.
Again, this is not difficult to understand.
To Olly: This is where we differ. As an outsider I can look at the situation from a non American perspective.
I agree that America continues to deceive itself. But that the seed of this process was planted in 1776. The Founding Father’s knew exactly what they were doing and they used this concept for their own political advantage.