I have mixed feelings on Jefferson. I admire what Jefferson accomplished and think he is one of the greatest Americans. I also think he was too into the Enlightenment.
Yeah, I do think that’s the big downside with him, unfortunately. I hope to show that it’s not quite as bad as modern academia would have us believe; but it is undeniable that it influenced him greatly.
The next installment will be on the “race” question looked like for him. My eventual, very long term, goal is to write a book modeled after Plato’s Republic, but expounding Jefferson’s ideal Virginia. So I’m going to write this series with that overarching goal in mind; starting with the question of who the “American” people, or Virginian people are will lay the foundation for the rest of the series and hopefully, book eventually.
Surrounding documents are super and interesting but sadly it is the declaration that has done the damage. The founders may have been based, but in order to justify their rebellion they resorted to language outside of the English tradition.
What the question proved was that words and phrases have certain referents which change with different historical contexts. Ergo, what “all men are created equal” meant to the Founders, is not what it means to us today; the same way what “Gay” meant to Shakespeare, is not what it means to us today. And it’s ignorant at best, and outright dishonest at worst to criticize the use of words and phrases in the past because you’re incapable of interpreting the text in any way that doesn’t impose our meaning of the word or phrase back into history.
They were not only rebellious Whigs but innovativers who summoned up and unleashed the demons of liberalism. Instead of invoking their particular rights as Englishmen they proceeded to use nonsense universal language which has been the go to move for scoundrels on the make to this day. They thought that liberalism was a vehicle that would take them to their destination and all would be fine. We now know that in fact it is a corrupting process that destroys all before it. I'm not saying that maybe in his heart of hearts Jefferson wasn't based (I think he wanted it both ways) but the Result was terrible and that was obvious even at the time to people such as Dr Johnson.
Up until that time the convention was to speak of the rights of Englishmen and not this nonsense of “mankind”. This was a dangerous innovation designed to rationalise treason.
Jefferson greatest error and disservice to humanity was to shoehorn the very particular and special cultural inheritance of rights, duties and expectations of free born, property owning Englishmen, and generalise this into a mad, bad and dangerous scheme for all humanity. Damn his eyes.
Equal in the eyes of God, is what is meant there. And yes, this is true.
As far as natural racial distinctions predisposing races to varying levels of sinful tendencies, etc., Jefferson affirms fully and says that Negroes, for example, are fully incompatible with White civilization in notes on the state on Virginia, “it is not their condition then, but nature which hath produced the distinction.”
You are the type of uncritical imbecile I referenced in my essay who pontificates on Jefferson, yet have never read him with any attention before.
If Jefferson truly meant that, then he should have explicitly said that. Instead he opened the doors that every day are forced open wider and wider in a never ending worldwide process of degeneration. Clarifying himself later, elsewhere, was bolting the door after the horses had bolted. Your abuse indicates a lack of maturity and confidence in your position.
Still, insults are no substitute for argument. My point remains that Jefferson's universalist language in the declaration of independence, regardless of whatever he may have written elsewhere, did and is still doing, the world enormous harm.
I have mixed feelings on Jefferson. I admire what Jefferson accomplished and think he is one of the greatest Americans. I also think he was too into the Enlightenment.
Looking forward to watching this series develop!
Yeah, I do think that’s the big downside with him, unfortunately. I hope to show that it’s not quite as bad as modern academia would have us believe; but it is undeniable that it influenced him greatly.
The next installment will be on the “race” question looked like for him. My eventual, very long term, goal is to write a book modeled after Plato’s Republic, but expounding Jefferson’s ideal Virginia. So I’m going to write this series with that overarching goal in mind; starting with the question of who the “American” people, or Virginian people are will lay the foundation for the rest of the series and hopefully, book eventually.
This is a good introduction, looking forward to the series.
If you’re interested, here’s a great defense of Thomas Jefferson:
https://youtu.be/Oz8CvRRTvbU?is=s866bdNB_qaxKD3-
Thank you!
Np 👍
Surrounding documents are super and interesting but sadly it is the declaration that has done the damage. The founders may have been based, but in order to justify their rebellion they resorted to language outside of the English tradition.
You realize the declaration sent to England is not the short “Declaration of Independence” that we commonly refer to, right?
The full declaration of independence absolutely uses purely and historically justified English language.
Nonetheless, that's what you've nailed your colours to.
This is such a poor take.
If an old English writer said being “gay” is good, would you criticize him for promoting homosexuality?
I will critique Jefferson for his Liberalism.
That wasn’t the question.
What the question proved was that words and phrases have certain referents which change with different historical contexts. Ergo, what “all men are created equal” meant to the Founders, is not what it means to us today; the same way what “Gay” meant to Shakespeare, is not what it means to us today. And it’s ignorant at best, and outright dishonest at worst to criticize the use of words and phrases in the past because you’re incapable of interpreting the text in any way that doesn’t impose our meaning of the word or phrase back into history.
They were not only rebellious Whigs but innovativers who summoned up and unleashed the demons of liberalism. Instead of invoking their particular rights as Englishmen they proceeded to use nonsense universal language which has been the go to move for scoundrels on the make to this day. They thought that liberalism was a vehicle that would take them to their destination and all would be fine. We now know that in fact it is a corrupting process that destroys all before it. I'm not saying that maybe in his heart of hearts Jefferson wasn't based (I think he wanted it both ways) but the Result was terrible and that was obvious even at the time to people such as Dr Johnson.
Up until that time the convention was to speak of the rights of Englishmen and not this nonsense of “mankind”. This was a dangerous innovation designed to rationalise treason.
Jefferson greatest error and disservice to humanity was to shoehorn the very particular and special cultural inheritance of rights, duties and expectations of free born, property owning Englishmen, and generalise this into a mad, bad and dangerous scheme for all humanity. Damn his eyes.
Provide citations, because he did not believe all of humanity was capable of such freedoms.
“All men are created equal”.
Equal in the eyes of God, is what is meant there. And yes, this is true.
As far as natural racial distinctions predisposing races to varying levels of sinful tendencies, etc., Jefferson affirms fully and says that Negroes, for example, are fully incompatible with White civilization in notes on the state on Virginia, “it is not their condition then, but nature which hath produced the distinction.”
You are the type of uncritical imbecile I referenced in my essay who pontificates on Jefferson, yet have never read him with any attention before.
If Jefferson truly meant that, then he should have explicitly said that. Instead he opened the doors that every day are forced open wider and wider in a never ending worldwide process of degeneration. Clarifying himself later, elsewhere, was bolting the door after the horses had bolted. Your abuse indicates a lack of maturity and confidence in your position.
You, sir, are ignorant to the utmost.
Read Jefferson, then speak on him. Thank you for vindicating my essay.
Still, insults are no substitute for argument. My point remains that Jefferson's universalist language in the declaration of independence, regardless of whatever he may have written elsewhere, did and is still doing, the world enormous harm.