Why Didn't Jefferson Manumit His Slaves?

[Captdon]

So, let's see...

Jefferson engaged in miscegnation, Franklin was a philanderer, Washington owned slaves, Jeff Davis owned slaves, but those were happy slaves, (Jeff was a Democrat president, after all), MLK was also a philsnderer, but he doesn't matter because the Rodents reject his teachings, Clinton is a rapist, Obama is an illegal alien and a Muslim and a homosexual and a traitor, but we are only going to focus on the character flaws to destroy the legacies of the men who built this mation, in order to destroy the nation itself.

That's why this thread on Jefferson was posted, wasn't it, to destroy the ideals by smearing the man?

Are we supposed to reject the Sermon on the Mount because Jesus was a cis-gendered male?

Correction. Jefferson Davis was never President.

[Private Pickle]

correction. Jefferson davis was never president.

lol.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Correction. Jefferson Davis was never President.

He was a Democrat elected to be President.

Just not of the United States.

He's no different than any other Democrat. He had slaves and wanted more.

[Sergeant Gleed]

it takes a consensus. Most folks didn't see the slaves as Men. So much has changed since those days. Today, slavery is beyond intelligent thought. It is barbaric and cruel, yet it still exists in some areas of the globe.
I disagree with your final statement. She was hardly irrelevant. That conversation has sparked a great deal of discussion which is necessary to ensure it never happens again on US soil. She is part of the narrative. like it or not.

They all saw the slaves as men.

That's why they sought for and found excuses for their slavery in the bible.

They wouldn't have needed to make excuses if they didn't know they were men.

You revisionists need to get real. Not everybody drinks what you do.

you could at least study the period.

Why would the slaves be counted for apportionment if they were not men? How would the Northerners even considering treating them as a fraction of a man, as a form of compromise, if they were not already deemed to be whole men?

Yeah, you got nothing.

[stjames1_53]

They all saw the slaves as men.
Then why were so many treated as animals? We all know real men don't treat others in this manner
That's why they sought for and found excuses for their slavery in the bible.
Slavery was common in those days. Christ said, if you're going to be a slave, be a good slave.
They wouldn't have needed to make excuses if they didn't know they were men.
What excuses?
You revisionists need to get real. Not everybody drinks what you do.
oh, with the left-styled insults.
you could at least study the period.
I have and you're wrong.
Why would the slaves be counted for apportionment if they were not men? How would the Northerners even considering treating them as a fraction of a man, as a form of compromise, if they were not already deemed to be whole men?
Your supposition is in error. They were counted as property to garner more votes for property holders to use. Most Northerners didn't want the black man in their neighborhoods. They still regarded them as slaves and less than men.
Yeah, you got nothing.

and you're trying to rewrite history with your foot stuck in the past.

[Sergeant Gleed]

and you're trying to rewrite history with your foot stuck in the past.

Your $#@! would be easier to respond to if you bothered to format your responses correctly.

Democrats treated their human property as animals because Rodents don't change over time.

I'm not going to waste time trying to sort out your other resonates from my postings. If you'd wanted answers you would posted better.

The Rodents knew their slaves were men because they made excuses for ownership.

I make no excuses for my ownership of huskies. Nor does anyone make excuses for their ownership of cats, birds, fish, lizards, horses, cows, pigs, deer, chickens, etc.

Only the ownership of men requires justification, because no justification exists for the ownership of men.

Oh, I will consent to answer one other false point you made.

The southern slave owning states wanted a one-for-one equivalence of slaves to apportionment on the census. Because everyone knew the slaves were not men, the northern states wanted in return a one-for-one equivalence for their cows and hogs, and aten-for-one counting for each Rosie O'Donnell they could priduce...Massachusetts being what it is...

...and the Southern states knew they'd never close the Rosie Gap so they all agreed to the compromise of 3/5...but, of course, there was never any thought that $#@!s were human beings...

...what kind of $#@! do you people smoke, anyway?

[EvilCat Breath]

Jefferson did give some of his slaves freedom upon his death -- among them was his long-time mistress, Sally, and their mixed-race children.

You mean his sister in law, Sally Hemmings don't you? She was only 1/4 black and looked very European.

Sally's brother James was very close to Thomas Jefferson occupying the place of both best friend and brother. Jefferson paid for James to attend culinary school in Paris and made him head chef of the white house.

[FindersKeepers]

You mean his sister in law, Sally Hemmings don't you? She was only 1/4 black and looked very European.

Sally's brother James was very close to Thomas Jefferson occupying the place of both best friend and brother. Jefferson paid for James to attend culinary school in Paris and made him head chef of the white house.

Yes, Hemmings. It's said her hair was long, straight, and black -- and that her skin was very light. She was an amazing woman and she chose to remain with Jefferson rather than be free in France. I watched a show a couple of years ago that talked about a few of their descendants who are alive today. Quite interesting about James. Jefferson obviously was good to his slaves.