posted
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.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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
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.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
