I wonder what Mr. Cards views are on Thomas Jefferson and Jeffersons actions and ideals, I am referring to Shadow of the Giant where Jefferson is called as vile a politician as ever walked the earth, or something along those lines. I also wonder about his book Heartfire, where John Adams has an out and out feud with Jefferson, and vehemently disagrees with him on the matter of church and state, or so it appears to me. In none of the other books by Card that I have read does he seem, to me, to harbor such great animosity towards any one person.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Card's not a big fan of Jefferson. I think he blames him for liberals. Posted by KEGE (Member # 424) on :
"If the shoe fits ...."
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
You also can't assume that the views of one or more of his characters are at all related to his own views.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Jefferson was kind of a moron in a lot of ways...
Dont remember what those are at the moment but I remember being disgusted with him on alot of points during history class.
Posted by The Real Sid Meier (Member # 8439) on :
actually most of the founding fathers are stunningly and embassasingly full of sh*t. These were a group of unelected slave owners who suggested that their class be the only class allowed to vote.
Posted by Blackthorne (Member # 8295) on :
I liked learning about Jefferson up until he became president. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I didn't realize you were that old.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
OSC also made a negative comment about Jefferson in a column, as I recall. It came in a review of a historical book he had read.
Thank you for starting this thread, Running Bear. I have been very curious as well, and meaning to start a thread or something, but I never got around to it.
(Then again, if I did start a thread asking for elaboration, I'd probably get accused of being a closet liberal who just wanted to push my plans for mandatory social experiments. You know, like the last time.) [/bitter]
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
From what little history I know, I think the Founding Fathers were extremely intelligent and did an excellent job setting up the foundation of the US.
Of course, it's unfortunate that fear of what had occurred in England shaped so much of the Founding Fathers' goal. I'm not saying they were particularly nice people - but they certainly were great intellectuals (take that for what you will).
I particularly enjoyed reading Howard Zinn's take of them, which I'm sure Sid Meier would agree with (I should note, I agree, too).
As for what MidnightBlue wrote, I agree for the most part. Yet when an author has a number of different characters in different books hold the same specific view, it sometimes can shed light into what the author believes. Not always, but sometimes.
At any case, the question also intrigues me.
Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
Jefferson was a repugnant human being, even compared to his contemporaries. He was a man of high ideals and base deeds.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
Well, thanks for settling that for us. Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
You're welcome.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Bah, your 'Founding Fathers' are all a bunch of rebels and traitors to their King. Hang the lot of 'em, I say.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
A little late for that King Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
lol, about 200 years late me thinks. /grin
come to think of it had the USA remained a colony would've the Brits won the war?
Posted by DemonGarik (Member # 7793) on :
If you are looking for a good book about the founding fathers- go read Gore Vidal's Burr- Its about Aaron Burr who is very bitter about his treatment and not becoming president and such. Its a pretty interesting read and definately humanizes the founding fathers.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
I was thinking about Gore Vidal when I read this thread earlier. The only one of his books that I've read so far was Empire, which was phenomenal. Awesome writer.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
It's hard for me to get a grasp on characters from the Revolutionary War. Biographers tend to be too sympathetic to their subjects when they write about them... and often it seems like the only way to get a negative take on a figure is when they're not the main subject of a biography.
For example, I read a biography of Benjamin Franklin. Had lots of great things to say about Franklin (many of them true I'm sure).
A few years later I read David McCullough's biography of John Adams. Adams had major problems with Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin. He thought Franklin was a useless old fool as far as being an ambassador to France in the 1780s... not the sort of thing I'd have picked up from the Franklin bio.
Anyway... my impression of Jefferson is that he was a good statesman but awful person (slaveholder, spendthrift, etc.) He was pretty mean as a politician... but most of the Founding Fathers were.
Posted by Blackthorne (Member # 8295) on :
Jefferson had a lot of great ideals, but never put them into practice in his own life. For instance, he believed that slaves should be emancipated, but didn't release his own slaves. As president he defied most of his own beliefs (Ex: Against National Debt -> Louisianna Purchase). He actually was so angry at himself as president that he had his epitaph list the Declaration of Independence and his work in freedom of religion, but not his presidency.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Blackthorne? is that name from Shogun?
Posted by Blackthorne (Member # 8295) on :
Well, I use it in reference to the series I am writing, but I believe that the name is used in Shogun. In my series, it's not really the name of a person.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
i c
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
It seems to me that Jefferson was despised by many as being a hypocrite, because he both fought for the freeing of slaves but owned slaves himself, however I have been to monticello (Jeffersons Home) and the living quarters of the slaves were much better than any other plantations i have seen. Thomas Jefferson had to own slaves in order to make a difference in those times, if he hadnt, the United States would be much less free. I also understand that those slaves still had to work with no wages in awful conditions, even if they were better than most. I also have to wonder if Mr. Card is opposed to Jefferson's demands for freedom of religion, as stated by John Adams in Heartfire. in my opinion however, the freedom of religion is what allows persons of any religion to speak freely without worry of persecution. I would like Mr. Card to think about what a country it would be like if suddenly Mormons were considered evil, and the U.S. legal system was used to quite literally kill off the members of that religion. Thomas Jefferson was a self proclaimed Anti-Christian, however he allowed the U.S. government to be free from a controlling priesthood, or theocracy, as in Iran. This allowed Christians to practice freely any sect they want to practice. Thomas Jefferson also believed in Jesus Christ. What he did not believe was the political nonsense that came about after Jesus' death. He actually compiled his own version of the bible, where he included only the teachings he believed were Jesus' message of love and charity. that book is called the Jefferson Bible. I am aware that i go off topic in this reply, but i feel that the truth must be told to all who will hear, no matter how long winded.
Posted by Blackthorne (Member # 8295) on :
quote:"I would like Mr. Card to think about what a country it would be like if suddenly Mormons were considered evil, and the U.S. legal system was used to quite literally kill off the members of that religion.
Um...not to be contrary, but that actually happened. Read about Governor Boggs extermination order.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: come to think of it had the USA remained a colony would've the Brits won the war?
Which war? Incidentally, why has your apparent IQ dropped twenty points in the last two days, judging by your spelling?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
... my spelling is fine, beginning the sentance without a capitol is the only thing wrong. As for which war, usually "The War" in todays language usually refers to WWII. I'ld appreciate it if certain people don't insult my intelligence just because of my spelling.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And anyway, if you are going to nit pick, nit pick right, it was his grammer not his spelling that was faulty.
Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: Thomas Jefferson had to own slaves in order to make a difference in those times, if he hadnt, the United States would be much less free.
If I'm reading this right, that is perhaps the most asinine statement I've read in...I can't even begin to think of how long. Are you trying to say that if the US had not enslaved a race of people and their descendents for hundreds of years, thereby denying them the most basic of human rights, the country would have been *less* free?
Jefferson wrote the DI in 1776. From the day that he wrote "all men are created equal," he increased his number of slaves and real estate, acquiring wealth due to his power. At the same time he wrote that if there is a vengeful God, we (slaveholders) will pay for it? At the same time he wrote that Africans were sub-humans, thereby rationalizing his treatment of them?
He had children with Sally Hennings, and those children were slaves. They remained slaves after he died, becuase unlike Washington, who freed the very people who had given him wealth, Jefferson chose to pass his human beings on to the next generations.
Jefferson did not need to own slaves to become a great mind. He did need to own them to acquire wealth, and that is what he did.
Rationalizing the decision to hold another human in bondage is an outrage. No one is free until we all are free.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, when it was written "all men are created equal," nobody was talking about ethnicity or race at the time. It was a statement, primarily, about class.
Anyway, slavery was a terrible thing. Saying that everyone was doing it (or, atleast, some where) doesn't mean the people who did it were right.
It can be a very difficult thing, but I'm reluctant to judge historical figures based on today's moral standards.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: ... my spelling is fine, beginning the sentance without a capitol is the only thing wrong. As for which war, usually "The War" in todays language usually refers to WWII. I'ld appreciate it if certain people don't insult my intelligence just because of my spelling.
Well, in the first place the British did win the war. In the second place, the words are "sentence" and "capital". In the third place, "would've the Brits" shows a total lack of understanding of contractions, as indeed does "I'ld"; and using "usually" twice in one sentence is not only redundant but also confusing. Plus you missed an apostrophe in "today's". In the fourth place, I was not referring only to this post, but to several others made over the past few days. And in the fifth place, on the Internet, the only thing I can possibly judge your intelligence by is what you post. If you post badly spelled, un-intelligible crap, you will naturally come across as an idiot.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:"would've the Brits" shows a total lack of understanding of contractions,
This is extremely awkward, but I'm not sure it's an error. Cannot you see my point? And, in any case, it shows not a lack of understanding of contractions, but (if anything) a lack of understanding of syntax.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I'm not the only person here who has their posts riddled with typo's are we all idiots then? Just because I'm in a hurry sometimes or my hands are shaky and my pinky doesn't like to respond correctly, someitmes I'm so frustrated that I may or may not bash my computer key board sever times pretending its you! And some of us would PREFER IT IF OUR BLOODY FAMILY MEMBERS DON'T NITPICK EVERYTIME WE MAKE A MISTAKE! And that goes for strangers as well. Some of u don't have to make every post in essay format to prove how sophistocated we are.
As I said, If the US were still colonies all the way to now, would have the brits won the war without America. That is what I said or meant and I don't see how what I typed didn't convey that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, you are the only person who consistently has this amount of errors, at least among the regulars. And while it is of course your privilege to prove, every time you open your keyboard, how 'unsophistocated' you are, I don't see why I should refrain from pointing it out. It's rather unpleasant to read. The obvious solution, incidentally, is not to post in a hurry.
How do you mean, 'without America'? Canada fought, and indeed gained a great reputation as the spearhead of the Empire, in both the Great War and Hitler's war. I don't see why the more southerly colonies shouldn't, nor why they would remain un-industrialised. It would be a bit inconvenient to ship all that iron ore and coal to the motherland, after all.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Sid, for the record I was not criticizing you. If it makes you feel any better, I interpreted KoM's slam as suggesting that many of your other posts are better written (oh, dear, I'm not sure I'm helping at all here.) Truthfully, I do find posts with many errors in language use annoying, unless there's some excuse that's known to me which causes me to give extra slack in my mind. Yours are far from the worst, though. But I'd be dishonest if I didn't say that I think people should make the effort to state and spell things correctly when they know how to. (I only say this because the point has been brought up.) I virtually never post solely to criticize other's writing, though. It would make it all the more embarrassing when I mess up myself.
As for KoM, he is one of the few people who consistently has this amount of snideness, at least among the regulars. And while it is, of course, his privilege to prove, every time he types a post, what a churl he can be, and while it can be unpleasant to read, you certainly need not feel that a condemnation from somebody as ubiquitously critical as he is reflects that badly on you. The obvious solution, incidentally, is to ignore him when he is being insulting.
(Doing your best with regard to grammar, spelling, and usage out of a decent respect for the sensibilities of other posters is not a bad idea either; I just don't think you should be insulted as you have been.)
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Thank you Icki (or Icy? Acutally for that Matter where does Icarus come from?? I remember a reference from Hegemonia or wait, was it the kid who flew too close to the sun?)
Your weren't insulting or condenscending you at least used graemlins in your post which to my estimation adds enough emotion for me to tell what the purpose of the post was.
As for KoM, I saw no outright spelling errors when I typed it and to be critized for spelling errors which were rather grammatical errors is quite simply asinine. I don't always have the time to go over every post that's less then 20 words long for grammar, its not an essay and to my mind the post was understandable even upon rereading.
But c'mon, directly insulting my intelligence is a very low blow considering that I've done my damnedest(Sp?) to try to NOT insult or belittle others (with the exception of the Thread dedicated to petty arguements and insults ), most of my posts if they aren't informative were at least made in the purpose of being friendly/funny.
As for my glib about America I was in the mode for speculation of an alternative historical scenario, and now I am nolonger in the mood to do so .
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Look, comrade, grammar is just as important as spelling when it comes to maintaining the pure doctrine of the Grammar Communist Party. Siberia for you, I think. More to the point, 'not having time' is just ridiculous; if you can't be bothered to write properly, why should I be bothered to read your posts?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
i don't know whether to be peeved or to laugh at the GCP.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The Grammar Nazis agreed to let the Grammar Communists take on Sid. Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
*gasp* *groans in agony*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
We're not partitioning him, though. We remember what happened the last time that was tried. And we'll be fortifying him a lot better this time.
Posted by soccersprout91 (Member # 8207) on :
Okay, here goes... First of all, I admire Jefferson, but not as a flawless god. You can't disagree that he was a brilliant man, and did an immense amount for the founding of your country.
However, I can't deny that he had many flaws. Owning slaves while actively admonishing slave ownership is not something to be admired for. Neither is having an affair with one of the said slaves. In fact, at this point in time, it seems like something awful, horrible, and detestable - but this is 2005. Like Chungwa, I try not to judge these men with the benefit of hindsight.
I've been reading a fairly old bio of Jefferson that I found at the library; "The Young Thomas Jefferson" by Claude Bowers. (copyright 1945) Because it deals with his childhood, adolescent, and young adult life, there are many interesting nuggets of information that shed a bit of light on his later years, and you get a feel for his thoughts. It doesn't really try to sugarcoat any of his actions, either, but rather presents the bare facts.
Also, as someone else mentioned, Jefferson wasn't the only founding father that made more than a few errors - all of them were very far from perfect. None of them were exactly experiened in the formation of new nations, and yet they managed to create a world superpower. (nowadays, that's debatable.)
RunningBear- thanks so much for posting this. I ended up talking completely about Jefferson and none about OSC, but hey. History-starved high school freshman, here. You know who I *really* hate? Andrew Jackson. Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I mentioned that the Founding fathers were flawed though I used much more calourful language at the time, in imitation of the comedian george carlin.
When refering to that people for osme reaosn expect their politicians to be honest like the founding fathers *chokes and spills drink in laughter*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:yet they managed to create a world superpower.
As a matter of fact, they did nothing of the kind. You seem to be forgetting that France still owned considerably more of the continent than the fledgling US did, even if it was nowhere near as heavily populated. Take another look at the pwning Britain handed out to the US in 1812, while busy with a major European war, and tell me again the US was a superpower.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well actually, the War of 1812 was a political victory for the US (most colonial historians in the UK, Canada, and the US will agree with this - that's my cop-out of having to look up sources. If you really want me to, though, I will).
At any rate, I'm sure you knew he was talking about the US being a superpower in modern times - not the day after the founding of the nation.
Posted by soccersprout91 (Member # 8207) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: At any rate, I'm sure you knew he was talking about the US being a superpower in modern times - not the day after the founding of the nation.
I was sort of counting on the fact that people would realize I meant they laid the foundation for the superpower it is now, not that it just magically sprung up. Thanks for clearing it up.
Oh, and for the record, this he is actually a she. Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by soccersprout91: Oh, and for the record, this he is actually a she. [/QB]
Woops. I'm sorry about that. Posted by soccersprout91 (Member # 8207) on :
that's okay. i'm fairly new. besides, i get that a lot. "you're a girl? and you're only 14?" apparently my writing sounds older and male. Posted by Blackthorne (Member # 8295) on :
Wow...a topic about Jefferson goes from grammatic errors to gender issues in just six posts. That deserves a world record. Posted by Jiminy (Member # 7917) on :
I had a weird conversation with a guy at Barnes & Noble a few weeks ago. He kept insisting that I remidned him of Ben Franklin. I'm awesome.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
If someone said that to me, I'd have trouble not responding with, "Oh. Did you know him well?"
Posted by soccersprout91 (Member # 8207) on :
heh. Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I agree that Jefferson was not perfect by any means, he was a politician for a major (historically at least) portion of his life, and he was a very tricky one at that. I suppose that could be considered vile... As for the slave issue, the ownership of slaves by anyone at anytime was an awful thing to behold and the fact that it took almost 100 years for them to be legally freed and 200 years to become socially free is truly horrifying in my opinion. I am not saying that America had a greater level of freedom because of slavery, it is quite the opposite. America had greater liberty because its leaders at that time set the groundwork for later leaders such as Abraham Lincoln (whom I hope to hear more about in the next book) to abolish it entirely. Jefferson did not need slaves to have a great mind, but he did need them to support it in those times. I appreciate the statement that one must not judge someone from those times by todays moral standards. Even so, it was not right, but I believe that the average person today, if they were in Jefferson's (or any other political leaders) shoes they would have had slaves. And by that I am NOT saying that it was ok for the leaders in those times to own and treat slaves as they did. I would also like a bit of an answer to the earlier statement that Mr. Card blames Jefferson for liberals. I am not making an attack, I am merely confused.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
actually even in setting the foundation for it doesn't necasarily mean that America would end up a super power. I think Turtledove speculated quite well that if Lee's battle orders haven't been lost the Confederacy would've won there independence with the backing of UK and France.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: if Lee's battle orders haven't been lost the Confederacy would've won there independence with the backing of UK and France.
Well, that's extremely debatable.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
From a NYT Book Review of a couple books about Virginian slave owners who DID free their slaves -- link
quote:IN the summer of 1814, a young Virginian named Edward Coles -- a protégé and family friend of Thomas Jefferson -- wrote to his mentor asking for some advice. Coles, who had inherited slaves from his father, was considering setting them free, and sent off a letter seeking Jefferson's blessing and guidance.
When the reply came from Monticello, however, it scolded Coles for having ever considered ''abandoning this property, and your country with it.'' Jefferson insisted he abhorred slavery, and foresaw its eventual demise, ''whether brought on by the generous energy of our own minds'' or by a ''bloody process.'' Until that presumably distant day, however, it was the duty of every slaveholding gentleman to shoulder the ancestral burden as best he could, for the good of both races: there was no place for free blacks in a slave-based society. In a letter to another correspondent several years later, Jefferson expressed himself in starker metaphorical terms: ''We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.''
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Well, possibly but possibly not, think about it:
Lee doesn't lose his battle orders and McClellin doesn't know how spread out Lee is, Lee beats the sh$t out of McClellin in a terrible route. Lincoln can't emmancipate the slaves eithout it seeming like desparation thus England and France while abhoring slavery nevertheless support the Confederacy and pressure the Union to allow them seceed.
It depends on how Lincoln would react, remember before the Emmancipation the civil war didn't have that moral aspect to it, once there was emmancipation England and France withdrew their support because the moral outlook of the war had been changed.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I think that statement by Jefferson seems to show my beliefs on how he viewed slavery, it is not something to be honored, however in those times, a "gentleman" I am using 18th century terms had to own slaves to make a difference. I thought Lincoln also made the wolf by the ear remark, perhaps he got it from Jefferson? Also, could someone clarify the Jefferson-Liberals connection?
Posted by soccersprout91 (Member # 8207) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: Also, could someone clarify the Jefferson-Liberals connection?
I'd love to know too...
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I actually asked OSC about that in this thread. This was his answer:
quote:Interesting on the Jefferson references. My books ALWAYS reflect my current reading. At the time of Heartfire, though, what I had been reading was a biography of John Quincy Adams, which contained references to his father's attitudes toward Jefferson. But at the time, I still was a complete Jefferson defender.
It was only later, when writing Giant, that I had just read the Chernow biography of Hamilton that laid it all to rest. Getting chapter and verse on how Jefferson manipulated the political destruction of Hamilton, who really WAS what Jefferson only pretended to be (and from an impartial-seeming biographer who had no qualms about showing Hamilton's real defects), ticked me off. So that example was bound to come to mind. I had no idea that there would be any coincidence between Heartfire and Giant.
Here's the thing: In Heartfire, I was showing a character's viewpoint even though it didn't coincide with mine. In Giant, I was drawing on stuff I had learned in a recent book (like the Amaranth in Speaker, which was in a Sci-Am article at the time I was writing it), and supposing (as I often do) that readers have all read what I just read; in that case, I was taking it for granted that this information was available to everyone and the character was simply using it as an example. The Jefferson stuff wasn't the point, it was merely supporting the point.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Thank you for that reply, I am very grateful for this, it explains a lot about what he was doing in the two books. (maybe I should have looked at the time gap between the two books) However i still do not quite understand the Jefferson-Liberals connection.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[/QB]![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), most of my posts if they aren't informative were at least made in the purpose of being friendly/funny.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)