I study a lot of history and have always thought Jefferson was the 2nd most impressive of the Founding Fathers after Washington. I had never heard this however.

Thomas Jefferson tried to end slavery in 1769.
He was barely in the Virginia colonial legislature before he put forward legislation to emancipate slaves under the British Crown.
The King vetoed it.
So when Jefferson sat down seven years later and wrote that the King had… pic.twitter.com/BZbDAPpin6

— American Journey Experience (@aje1776) July 10, 2026

"So when Jefferson sat down seven years later and wrote that the King had "suppressed every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain" the slave trade that wasn't just a political grievance.
That was personal."

I guess Jefferson forgot all about it when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted.

Slavery has been going on since humankind began. I don't hold anyone lower or higher in any regard for their actions, the King or Jefferson, given the time in which they lived. Jefferson owned slaves until the day he died.

Im Gipper said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

"So when Jefferson sat down seven years later and wrote that the King had "suppressed every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain" the slave trade that wasn't just a political grievance.
That was personal."

I guess Jefferson forgot all about it when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted.

---

What makes you think that?

He didn't draft either of those.

---

I believe he was in France during the entire time of the Constitutional convention.

Not sure what this means...

Iced-T14 said:

---

More than a foot??? I didn't know Jefferson was packing so much

---

Sally Hemings may disagree.

Interesting. I guess that puts Democrats on the side of the King

Logos Stick said:

---

Slavery has been going on since humankind began. I don't hold anyone lower or higher in any regard for their actions, the King or Jefferson, given the time in which they lived. Jefferson owned slaves until the day he died.

---

You make this caveat as if holding slaves was extremely common at the time. Only 2-3% of the population were slaveholders at the time.

To me it would be similar to saying I don't hold thieves in higher or lower regard because thieves have always existed.

There were several legal and financial hurdles to overcome for a slave owner to free his slaves in Virginia. Jefferson's failure to do so was probably more rooted in these roadblocks (some of which were definitely self-imposed) than in any actual desire to keep people enslaved.

Check out this episode of Words and Numbers from last week. They go into depth on Jefferson and slavery in light of the Declaration of Independence.

https://wordsandnumbers.org/episodes/?ep=episode-513-the-real-independence-day

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Slavery has been going on since humankind began. I don't hold anyone lower or higher in any regard for their actions, the King or Jefferson, given the time in which they lived. Jefferson owned slaves until the day he died.

---

You make this caveat as if holding slaves was extremely common at the time. Only 2-3% of the population were slaveholders at the time.

To me it would be similar to saying I don't hold thieves in higher or lower regard because thieves have always existed.

---

And it would have been 100% if the masses could have afforded them.

It was accepted by all, owner or not.

Logos Stick said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Slavery has been going on since humankind began. I don't hold anyone lower or higher in any regard for their actions, the King or Jefferson, given the time in which they lived. Jefferson owned slaves until the day he died.

---

You make this caveat as if holding slaves was extremely common at the time. Only 2-3% of the population were slaveholders at the time.

To me it would be similar to saying I don't hold thieves in higher or lower regard because thieves have always existed.

---

And it would have been 100% if the masses could have afforded them.

It was accepted by all, owner or not.

---

Slavery was a fairly charged political and human rights issue in the time and extensive opposing views on the subject were fairly well known and written about. Quakers abolished slavery early on as did most Religious Reformers. 20% of people in the colonies were slaves themselves so for sure at least 20% of people didn't find it acceptable. States started passing both gradual abolition laws and bans on slavery in the early 1800's. All evidence points to 100% of people wouldn't in fact own slaves if they could afford to.

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Slavery has been going on since humankind began. I don't hold anyone lower or higher in any regard for their actions, the King or Jefferson, given the time in which they lived. Jefferson owned slaves until the day he died.

---

You make this caveat as if holding slaves was extremely common at the time. Only 2-3% of the population were slaveholders at the time.

To me it would be similar to saying I don't hold thieves in higher or lower regard because thieves have always existed.

---

And it would have been 100% if the masses could have afforded them.

It was accepted by all, owner or not.

---

Slavery was a fairly charged political and human rights issue in the time and extensive opposing views on the subject were fairly well known and written about. Quakers abolished slavery early on as did most Religious Reformers. 20% of people in the colonies were slaves themselves so for sure at least 20% of people didn't find it acceptable. States started passing both gradual abolition laws and bans on slavery in the early 1800's. All evidence points to 100% of people wouldn't in fact own slaves if they could afford to.

---

LoL, so slaves would not have approved of slavery and slave ownership?! Well no ****, Sherlock. Counting the slaves in the ratio of those who would have owned slaves if price were no object is idiotic.

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Slavery has been going on since humankind began. I don't hold anyone lower or higher in any regard for their actions, the King or Jefferson, given the time in which they lived. Jefferson owned slaves until the day he died.

---

You make this caveat as if holding slaves was extremely common at the time. Only 2-3% of the population were slaveholders at the time.

To me it would be similar to saying I don't hold thieves in higher or lower regard because thieves have always existed.

---

This isn't realistic to the time. Slaves were a huge asset, especially for a plantation owner who tended to be asset rich and cash poor (relatively). Had Jefferson sold his slaves he would have been bankrupted, it wasn't a realistic option. I would also assume that Jefferson was proposing that the Crown compensate slave owners in order to emancipate their slaves (which is what England eventually did).

Remember as well that in the 1769 slavery was legal in every colony. Vermont was the first to ban it in 1777. Most states had a gradual abolition that had grandfather clauses, for instance Connecticut had legal slavery until 1848 in some capacity, New York 1827, New Jersey had legal slaves until 1866. Many wanted to abolish slavery but it was complicated, realize that slaves were a very common form of collateral for loans for instance.

Logos Stick said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Slavery has been going on since humankind began. I don't hold anyone lower or higher in any regard for their actions, the King or Jefferson, given the time in which they lived. Jefferson owned slaves until the day he died.

---

You make this caveat as if holding slaves was extremely common at the time. Only 2-3% of the population were slaveholders at the time.

To me it would be similar to saying I don't hold thieves in higher or lower regard because thieves have always existed.

---

And it would have been 100% if the masses could have afforded them.

It was accepted by all, owner or not.

---

Slavery was a fairly charged political and human rights issue in the time and extensive opposing views on the subject were fairly well known and written about. Quakers abolished slavery early on as did most Religious Reformers. 20% of people in the colonies were slaves themselves so for sure at least 20% of people didn't find it acceptable. States started passing both gradual abolition laws and bans on slavery in the early 1800's. All evidence points to 100% of people wouldn't in fact own slaves if they could afford to.

---

LoL, so slaves would not have approved of slavery and slave ownership?! Well no ****, Sherlock. Counting the slaves in the ratio of those who would have owned slaves if price were no object is idiotic.

---

Lots of freed slaves then bought slaves after they were free. The freed slaves that were sent to form Liberia set to pushing natives into forced labor almost immediately.

Logos Stick said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Slavery has been going on since humankind began. I don't hold anyone lower or higher in any regard for their actions, the King or Jefferson, given the time in which they lived. Jefferson owned slaves until the day he died.

---

You make this caveat as if holding slaves was extremely common at the time. Only 2-3% of the population were slaveholders at the time.

To me it would be similar to saying I don't hold thieves in higher or lower regard because thieves have always existed.

---

And it would have been 100% if the masses could have afforded them.

It was accepted by all, owner or not.

---

It was most certainly not accepted by all. Franklin was an abolitionist. Adam Smith, one of the intellectual godfathers of Amercanism, was an abolitionist.

Vermont became one of the furst governments in world history to officially ban the practice in 1777.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Slavery has been going on since humankind began. I don't hold anyone lower or higher in any regard for their actions, the King or Jefferson, given the time in which they lived. Jefferson owned slaves until the day he died.

---

You make this caveat as if holding slaves was extremely common at the time. Only 2-3% of the population were slaveholders at the time.

To me it would be similar to saying I don't hold thieves in higher or lower regard because thieves have always existed.

---

And it would have been 100% if the masses could have afforded them.

It was accepted by all, owner or not.

---

It was most certainly not accepted by all. Franklin was an abolitionist. Adam Smith, one of the intellectual godfathers of Amercanism, was an abolitionist.

Vermont became one of the furst governments in world history to officially ban the practice in 1777.

---

The OP was about Jefferson in 1769. In 1769 a person arguing slavery should be abolished outright was a distinct minority almost anywhere in the world.

To imply that 2-3% owned slaves and that proved it wasn't acceptable by the majority is simply nonsense. The only reason it wasn't a very large majority owners is because of wealth.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

"So when Jefferson sat down seven years later and wrote that the King had "suppressed every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain" the slave trade that wasn't just a political grievance.
That was personal."

I guess Jefferson forgot all about it when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted.

---

The repeal of slavery was originally a paragraph in the Declaration of Independence. It was struck to secure the signatures of South Carolina.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal...

That line survived. It's fairly evident that this was believed and held as form conviction. There was also the realization that economic constraints would hamper the full repeal and endanger the revolutionary momentum.

But failure of the revolution would set back individual liberty, freedom, and therefore the ultimate repeal of slavery. The establishment that "all men are created equal, endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was without doubt the first step toward the abolition of the practice of slavery.

---

Well said.

Im Gipper said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

"So when Jefferson sat down seven years later and wrote that the King had "suppressed every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain" the slave trade that wasn't just a political grievance.
That was personal."

I guess Jefferson forgot all about it when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted.

---

What makes you think that?

He didn't draft either of those.

---

I didn't say he drafted either. He had as much influence as anyone else at the time.

"Advocating for a Bill of Rights: While he generally liked the new Constitution, Jefferson felt it had fatal flaws, famously writing to James Madison that a bill of rights "is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth." His constant lobbying led to the inclusion of the first ten amendments"

He wrote against slavery in the Declaration of Independence but the other delegates struck it. On the The Rest of History podcast this week Tom Holland made a persuasive argument that the reason Jefferson never freed his slaves was because it would have bankrupted him - the slaves served as collateral to keep the tobacco farming operation going.

Quote:

---

"But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."- Jefferson to John Holmes, (discussing slavery and the Missouri question), April 22, 1820

---

ABattJudd said:

---

There were several legal and financial hurdles to overcome for a slave owner to free his slaves in Virginia. Jefferson's failure to do so was probably more rooted in these roadblocks (some of which were definitely self-imposed) than in any actual desire to keep people enslaved.

Check out this episode of Words and Numbers from last week. They go into depth on Jefferson and slavery in light of the Declaration of Independence.

https://wordsandnumbers.org/episodes/?ep=episode-513-the-real-independence-day

---

Undoubtedly, for Jefferson, the issue was fundamentally financial. With 600 slaves priced at $500 each in 1800, this equates to $300,000 in the monetary value of that period. If everyone was to free all of their slaves, that financial figure would no longer apply.

Jefferson was torn, but not stupid.

TJ is one of my heroes. On the question of "who would you choose as one of four dinner guests from anyone who ever lived?", TJ is at the very top of my list.

Bobaloo said:

---

TJ is one of my heroes. On the question of "who would you choose as one of four dinner guests from anyone who ever lived?", TJ is at the very top of my list.

---

It is certainly accurate that we judge individuals from the distant past according to our present-day values. I am assured that in the distant future, individuals will evaluate us based on aspects we currently perceive as "politically correct" and "woke".

He also claimed to be a Christian but rejected the trinity and denounced Christ in many ways.... so yeah, he's not coming to my dinner.

Hollywood and the left have assured us that Jefferson, along with most of the founding fathers, were evil white men.