Jefferson 1st Term Poll

[vcczar]

New poll:

@A man from Colorado @Alexander-Nicholas @Arkansas Progressive @Beetlejuice @Bloot911 @bradleyg223 @Brunell @Cenzonico @Cal @carbonmonoxide321 @ConservativeElector2 @DakotaHale @Dobs @DJBillyShakes @ebrk85 @Edouard @Entrecampos @Eugene @Fbarbarossa @Ghostie @Hestia @HiyarAgasi @Ich_bin_Tyler @Ishan @jnewt @Joe303300 @jvikings1 @Kitten @Largo833 @Lars @Murrman104 @Magnus Rex @Mark_W @mark2 @matthewyoung123 @MrPotatoTed @NYRepublican @OrangeP47 @Pringles @pilight @pman @Rezi @Rodja @SilentLiberty @ShortKing @Sean F Kennedy @The Blood @themiddlepolitical @Timur @TZMB @vcczar @Vols21 @vjw @WVProgressive @Willthescout7 @Zenobiyl

[vcczar]

I would still be a Federalist, but I'd vote against CC Pinckney for president. Both he and Jefferson are major slaveholders, but Jefferson at least is known to support the eventual abolition of slavery, while Pinckney was fighting for slaveowner writes at the Convention. I can't support any presidential nominee from the Deep South in the era of slavery. 

[OrangeP47]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I would still be a Federalist, but I'd vote against CC Pinckney for president. Both he and Jefferson are major slaveholders, but Jefferson at least is known to support the eventual abolition of slavery, while Pinckney was fighting for slaveowner writes at the Convention. I can't support any presidential nominee from the Deep South in the era of slavery. 

Accuse me of being a partisan hack maybe, but all these people who were like "oh yeah, we'll totally abolish slavery.... someday!" My response is "uh huh, sure..."  In other words, it identifies them as someone weaseling for political convenience.  Yeah, the other slave holders are bad too, but this "moderate" position doesn't win any points in my book, and in fact, might actually lose someone points because it seems as if they're just being an opportunist.  Therefore, I'm going to stick to the Federalist ticket and other cycles we'll have better candidates.  The issue at hand won't budge regardless, so it doesn't matter.

[Pringles]

4 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

Accuse me of being a partisan hack maybe, but all these people who were like "oh yeah, we'll totally abolish slavery.... someday!" My response is "uh huh, sure..."  In other words, it identifies them as someone weaseling for political convenience.  Yeah, the other slave holders are bad too, but this "moderate" position doesn't win any points in my book, and in fact, might actually lose someone points because it seems as if they're just being an opportunist.  Therefore, I'm going to stick to the Federalist ticket and other cycles we'll have better candidates.  The issue at hand won't budge regardless, so it doesn't matter.

I suppose Abraham Lincoln is opportunist scum for saying he wanted to return slaves to Africa... before signing the Emancipation Proclamation... and beginning efforts to ensure the passing of the 13th Amendment. 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Pringles

[Rezi]

Common Jeffersonian W

[OrangeP47]

2 hours ago, Pringles said:

I suppose Abraham Lincoln is opportunist scum for saying he wanted to return slaves to Africa... before signing the Emancipation Proclamation... and beginning efforts to ensure the passing of the 13th Amendment. 

The 1850s and 1860s was a drastically different time than circa 1800 1804, hence my comment "there's not going to be any movement on the issue anyway".  It's also a false equivalence fallacy, because while to us "returning the slaves to Africa" would not necessarily be a good look, it is hard to argue it's not an improvement over, you know, actually being enslaved.

That said, Lincoln does have waffly opprotunist tendencies.  That wouldn't be my biggest gripe with him.  That said, in his case, everyone else had way bigger detractions so he's the best of the lot, so it doesn't matter.  In short, basically my argument is not about ME, but it's about YOU.  Anyone saying Jefferson is better "because he wanted eventual abolition" is simply put telling themselves that so they can sleep better at night.  That's on you, not me me.  Hell, look at all the same people trying to sweep him raping a slave under the rug in the same breath.  Bravo voters.

[Pringles]

7 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

In short, basically my argument is not about ME, but it's about YOU.  Anyone saying Jefferson is better "because he wanted eventual abolition" is simply put telling themselves that so they can sleep better at night.

Did I say this? Didn't think so. You're perfectly within your right to hate the grievances you mentioned. However this is a for-fun poll, and I don't believe it's healthy for one to take it too seriously, even when presented with facetious/devils advocate remarks. 

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Did I say this? Didn't think so. You're perfectly within your right to hate the grievances you mentioned. However this is a for-fun poll, and I don't believe it's healthy for one to take it too seriously, even when presented with facetious/devils advocate remarks. 

I mean such is the nature of the poll, though.  Perhaps I did come off strongly, but I was merely trying to illustrate my point:  The mark against Jefferson is *right there*.  It is of course impossible to tell what any of us would have done if we were actually alive back then.  I'd say many of us are looking at this with too much of a modern lens, but I'm not one to judge on that because since it seems to be consensus I am as well.  If I was alive in 1804 maybe I would be full on in support of slavery, having not had the chance to grow up with different morals.  Honestly, to that point, it was somewhat with that in mind that I responded to V in the first place:  in 1804 surely I would have cared more about the bank policy than slavery.  1850?  Maybe not.  1804, I'd say almost certainly.

[vcczar]

@OrangeP47 I think the primary feeling around my statement regarding Jefferson and Pinckney is that I don't think Jefferson would be actively working to strengthen slavery or the slave states, while Pinckney likely would have, considering where he comes from. If you consider all of the nominees for president from 1788-1820, the only two with any true abolitionist feelings were Aaron Burr and Rufus King. Washington, J Adams, George Clinton, DeWitt Clinton, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe aimed to abstain on the issue, although Washington signed a fugitive slave act and Monroe the Missouri Compromise, which both protected slavery and restricted it. Jefferson signed the slave trade ban, but it had some negative to it. The two Pinckneys--CC and Thomas--were at a totally different level. They were part of the slavocracy of South Carolina, the slavery as a "positive good" school of thought. Jefferson and Washington were addicted to their free labor but both routinely wrote private letters wanting it to be abolished. They just couldn't kick the addiction, but they wouldn't encourage the growth of it. The Pinckneys would. Madison was somewhere in the middle. He seems to not have felt guilty the way Washington and Jefferson did. I suspect Monroe was more like Madison in this. 

[OrangeP47]

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@OrangeP47 I think the primary feeling around my statement regarding Jefferson and Pinckney is that I don't think Jefferson would be actively working to strengthen slavery or the slave states, while Pinckney likely would have, considering where he comes from. If you consider all of the nominees for president from 1788-1820, the only two with any true abolitionist feelings were Aaron Burr and Rufus King. Washington, J Adams, George Clinton, DeWitt Clinton, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe aimed to abstain on the issue, although Washington signed a fugitive slave act and Monroe the Missouri Compromise, which both protected slavery and restricted it. Jefferson signed the slave trade ban, but it had some negative to it. The two Pinckneys--CC and Thomas--were at a totally different level. They were part of the slavocracy of South Carolina, the slavery as a "positive good" school of thought. Jefferson and Washington were addicted to their free labor but both routinely wrote private letters wanting it to be abolished. They just couldn't kick the addiction, but they wouldn't encourage the growth of it. The Pinckneys would. Madison was somewhere in the middle. He seems to not have felt guilty the way Washington and Jefferson did. I suspect Monroe was more like Madison in this. 

I would totally go for Aaron Burr, except for the fact that he killed Hamilton. (also the fact that these polls are "on rails" so to speak, that's not a criticism it's just the nature of the beast.  I would much prefer an adaptive timeline, but I mean, that's why we have AMPU, so I'm not gonna complain about this at all haha). That being said, it's a double edged sword.  Just as I can't vote for Burr (in a timeline where he didn't kill Hamilton), we don't have real world information on what would happen if Pinckney was elected.  Perhaps it would be terrible. Perhaps the Northern base would make sure politics focused on the core Federalist issues, or kick the slavery issue down the road.  In my opinion, I think the Northern concentration of Federalist power was great enough that the latter options were likely.  I do not see 1804 as the time when the slavery issue comes to a head *or* the union is torn apart.  Around 1812-1816 maybe, but not now.  Of course, even this is a big if since historically it took much longer, but point being I don't think the issue had reached saliency yet.  My point being, when you look at the grand scheme of history, I don't think the "final outcome" on the slavery issue would be much changed by this one election.  It's "great man history" vs "history from below" in otherwords.  We all love great man history because it makes cool stories, but history from below is probably the more explanative theory.

[vcczar]

I'll get to Jefferson's 2nd term on either Wednesday or Friday. 

[vcczar]

I finally finished the Madison book by Jay Cost. It was much better for my purposes than the Meachem book on Jefferson. It was almost as good as the Chernow (Washington) and McCullough (Adams) books. The only flaw in the Cost book is that he doesn't site the dates very frequently prior to the Constitution and after Madison's presidency. Washington and Adams are specific with dates throughout, for the most part. Meachem is very chronologically non-specific, which will likely lead me to reading another Jefferson book at some point. 

[vcczar]

I might get to the 2nd term of Jefferson today. I'm a little behind on things, so it might get pushed back until Friday.

I'm now reading a Monroe biography by McGrath. It's fairly well-researched and well-written, but the author has a bad issue of using historical letters and quoting from them even if the dates of the letters don't line up with the year he's covering. I know he's trying to capture sentiment of Monroe, and etc., but it definitely frustrates my goal of typing out a timeline. Quoting letters from 1782 to talk about an event in 1779 without mentioning in-text that the quote is coming from 3 years later is misleading. Stuff like this has happened a few times already. 

So far, I'd say the Monroe book is better written than the Madison and Jefferson book, but that it falls short of the Washington and Adams books for the reasons I state. 

[DJBillyShakes]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:12 PM, vcczar said:

I finally finished the Madison book by Jay Cost. It was much better for my purposes than the Meachem book on Jefferson. It was almost as good as the Chernow (Washington) and McCullough (Adams) books. The only flaw in the Cost book is that he doesn't site the dates very frequently prior to the Constitution and after Madison's presidency. Washington and Adams are specific with dates throughout, for the most part. Meachem is very chronologically non-specific, which will likely lead me to reading another Jefferson book at some point. 

I've read Meachem's books on Jefferson and Jackson and found them likely. He's obviously a good writer, but the detail is always lacking. With detail and Jefferson, it's hard to beat Dumas Malone's series on him. It's six volumes and about 3,300 pages, but each book does begin with a chronology of the events covered in that volume. If you get to Jackson, I've read the first volume of Robert Remini's three-part biography and found it quite good.