BoDog said:

---

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.

---

Humans have a tendency to put everyone in a box. The fact of the matter is that people are nuanced, complicated, and change their beliefs and viewpoints frequently throughout life.

ts5641 said:

---

BoDog said:

---

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.

---

Humans have a tendency to put everyone in a box. The fact of the matter is that people are nuanced, complicated, and change their beliefs and viewpoints frequently throughout life.

---

okay....not certain if this is an attempt to contradict me or not, but yes I agree.

No. There were pockets of abolitionist at the time and numerous states had ended slavery during Jefferson's lifetime. He had been exposed to their writings and he knew slavery was evil. He just didn't care enough to make his life more difficult.


He wasn't an ignorant rube who didn't know any better.

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.

---

Jefferson the academic revolutionary was incredible. The DoI is hands down one of the greatest documents in human history.

That being said, he should have stayed an academic. He was mediocre as an executive at best and that's mostly because he lucked into the Louisiana Purchase. Now he took advantage of that and didn't trip over his own dick when it was offered. Outside of that, his presidency was awful and he was vindictive.

BoDog said:

---

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.

---

That's fine, he wasn't a devout Christian for sure but he was a serious intellectual and certainly believed in God who he spoke about many times. He had issues with different dogmas of different faiths for sure though and thus was a deeply conflicted man on his faith.

Bull Meachem said:

---

No. There were pockets of abolitionist at the time and numerous states had ended slavery during Jefferson's lifetime. He had been exposed to their writings and he knew slavery was evil. He just didn't care enough to make his life more difficult.


He wasn't an ignorant rube who didn't know any better.

---

He was also a politician who cared about many things and slavery was just one of them. Had he freed his slaves and become an abolitionist he would have not only been bankrupted he would have lost all his political power in Virginia and thus not been able to have any influence at all. It's clear from his writings he struggled with ways to end the practice but he also knew the reality of the time.

What he did do though:

Author of the Declaration
Author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which set the precedent of not having a state sponsored church and then the 1st Amendment later.
Founded the University of Virginia
First Secretary of State, VP to Adams
Louisiana Purchase
Lewis and Clark expedition
Won the First Barbary War
He also asked Congress to ban the importation of slaves which he successfully accomplished in 1808.

aggie93He was also a politician who cared about many things and slavery was just one of them. Had he freed his said:

---

He also asked Congress to ban the importation of slaves which he successfully accomplished in 1808.

---

I looked this up because I thought the Constitution banned the importation of slaves after 1808. What it actually did was prevented federal government from imposing a ban until 1808. And it appears Congress did act in 1808, at Jefferson's request.

Was every slave owner a horrid person who abused their slaves, beat them, attacked them with dogs, and treated them like cattle?


Ive always wondered if anyone owned slaves because: they knew they couldn't stop the institution of slavery, they had the wealth, and they knew they could give the slave a better life than others, while also thinking "normal slavery" was evil?

Like someone said earlier. Nuanced?

jeremy said:

---

Was every slave owner a horrid person who abused their slaves, beat them, attacked them with dogs, and treated them like cattle?


Ive always wondered if anyone owned slaves because: they knew they couldn't stop the institution of slavery, they had the wealth, and they knew they could give the slave a better life than others, while also thinking "normal slavery" was evil?

Like someone said earlier. Nuanced?

---

Certainly that happened. Slavery was a horrible and wrong practice but in essence slaves were like horses, valuable "livestock" that helped you both in your business and personal life. Did people beat and abuse their horses? Sure, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. The logical thing would be to treat them well and get the most production out of them and make them feel loyal to you. It doesn't make any sense for instance to spend what today would be a truck or a tractor and then abuse it. You would want your slaves to be happy and loyal. It made sense to feed them well, give them decent housing, and allow them to marry and have children. That's without even considering how many didn't agree with the idea of slavery but saw it as simply how the world worked.

Once again plenty of people abused slaves and the practice was horrible and wrong. Whenever you have someone with the ability to own another person and be able to do as you pleased with them some terrible things are going to happen, there are some really sick people out there. It's just also important to have a rational conversation on what slavery was and to look at things in the context of the time.

torrid said:

---

aggie93He was also a politician who cared about many things and slavery was just one of them. Had he freed his said:

---

He also asked Congress to ban the importation of slaves which he successfully accomplished in 1808.

---

I looked this up because I thought the Constitution banned the importation of slaves after 1808. What it actually did was prevented federal government from imposing a ban until 1808. And it appears Congress did act in 1808, at Jefferson's request.

---

Correct. Jefferson pushed for this early in his 2nd Term and made it a priority to be resolved.

Sadly there is an argument that this actually made slavery harder to end because it made slaves MORE valuable because the supply was limited by law at that point and thus made those who were pro slavery even more entrenched and threatened by the end of the practice. This was part of the enigma that many faced in ending the practice.

jeremy said:

---

Was every slave owner a horrid person who abused their slaves, beat them, attacked them with dogs, and treated them like cattle?


Ive always wondered if anyone owned slaves because: they knew they couldn't stop the institution of slavery, they had the wealth, and they knew they could give the slave a better life than others, while also thinking "normal slavery" was evil?

Like someone said earlier. Nuanced?

---

I am sure that this same conversation is going on in Sudan today.

aggie93 said:

---

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

---

In his autobiography, Jefferson envisioned a time when slavery Woukd need to be abolished. If you haven't read it, it's a quick, very interesting read.

aggie93 said:

---

jeremy said:

---

Was every slave owner a horrid person who abused their slaves, beat them, attacked them with dogs, and treated them like cattle?


Ive always wondered if anyone owned slaves because: they knew they couldn't stop the institution of slavery, they had the wealth, and they knew they could give the slave a better life than others, while also thinking "normal slavery" was evil?

Like someone said earlier. Nuanced?

---

Certainly that happened. Slavery was a horrible and wrong practice but in essence slaves were like horses, valuable "livestock" that helped you both in your business and personal life. Did people beat and abuse their horses? Sure, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. The logical thing would be to treat them well and get the most production out of them and make them feel loyal to you. It doesn't make any sense for instance to spend what today would be a truck or a tractor and then abuse it. You would want your slaves to be happy and loyal. It made sense to feed them well, give them decent housing, and allow them to marry and have children. That's without even considering how many didn't agree with the idea of slavery but saw it as simply how the world worked.

Once again plenty of people abused slaves and the practice was horrible and wrong. Whenever you have someone with the ability to own another person and be able to do as you pleased with them some terrible things are going to happen, there are some really sick people out there. It's just also important to have a rational conversation on what slavery was and to look at things in the context of the time.

---

This. Came here to say this very thing. If you spend what was probably a months worth of income on something, you are probably going to try to care for that particular purchase. Hollywood has everyone convinced that all slave owners were evil overlords standing out with their bullwhips just waiting for a chance to lay someone's back open to the bone. You don't get much work out of a person beat to a pulp, and it appears the whole idea was to have someone to do work. I'm sure there were bad people, but I can't help but think most people saw them as assets that needed to be treated better to get a good days work from them. I realize this sounds cold and calculating, but it's how things were then.

it was the threat of the whip or being sold away from their families that kept slaves working hard in brutal conditions. That was an ever present threat.

the benevolent slave owner would have been the rare exception, not the common rule. It all part of the lost cause mythology.


I believe you have to judge someone by their time and circumstances. Jefferson is my favorite of the founders. His position on slavery is a fascinating study.

Maybe a random thought, but I have wondered how much of the abolitionist movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, in a similar vein to the modern "economic equality" movement, was rooted more in the jealousy of the rich, and less about some shared morality. Human beings are human beings and are self interested creatures . If they had the means would they still carry on their "moral crusade"? Would today's "economic equality" warriors even care if they themselves had money? Would many of the abolitionists of the 1700/1800s have been so against the practice of slavery if their own families/selves owned slaves? If their own economic livelihoods relied heavily on the practice? I would posit No. As some have mentioned here, even those that saw slavery as morally wrong, like TJ, didn't exactly practice what they preach bc of "practical", mainly economic and/or political, reasons. So, like has been said repeatedly, it was a very complicated issue.

Sorry for the random thought. Just thinking out loud.

I never thought of this until today, but I guess there's a reason the Dems cozy up to Islam the way they do.

Muslims, historically, are the biggest buyers, sellers, and holders, of slaves, by a long shot, in the history of the world!

aggie93 said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

No. There were pockets of abolitionist at the time and numerous states had ended slavery during Jefferson's lifetime. He had been exposed to their writings and he knew slavery was evil. He just didn't care enough to make his life more difficult.


He wasn't an ignorant rube who didn't know any better.

---

He was also a politician who cared about many things and slavery was just one of them. Had he freed his slaves and become an abolitionist he would have not only been bankrupted he would have lost all his political power in Virginia and thus not been able to have any influence at all. It's clear from his writings he struggled with ways to end the practice but he also knew the reality of the time.

What he did do though:

Author of the Declaration
Author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which set the precedent of not having a state sponsored church and then the 1st Amendment later.
Founded the University of Virginia
First Secretary of State, VP to Adams
Louisiana Purchase
Lewis and Clark expedition
Won the First Barbary War
He also asked Congress to ban the importation of slaves which he successfully accomplished in 1808.

---

So the ends justify the means? Jefferson was so severely in debt due to his awful spending habits that his family lost Monticello after his death. He and the other owners struggled to give up slavery because they enjoyed the lifestyle it provided them, just like most tyrants do. I personally see Jefferson in a more negative light than those who believed slavery was a "positive good" because he admitted he knew better but was too limp-wristed to actually do anything about it if it impacted his lifestyle. He didn't keep his slaves so that he could have political power and make the world "better". You are being entirely too forgiving.

Again, Jefferson's DoI is one of the most important documents written in the history of mankind and it continues to resonate even today. But he knew better about slavery and didn't really care.

His thoughts about it are similar to those who say we live on stolen land and then ignore what they should do if they actually believe that bull*****

HummingbirdSaltalamacchia said:

---

Maybe a random thought, but I have wondered how much of the abolitionist movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, in a similar vein to the modern "economic equality" movement, was rooted more in the jealousy of the rich, and less about some shared morality. Human beings are human beings and are self interested creatures . If they had the means would they still carry on their "moral crusade"? Would today's "economic equality" warriors even care if they themselves had money? Would many of the abolitionists of the 1700/1800s have been so against the practice of slavery if their own families/selves owned slaves? If their own economic livelihoods relied heavily on the practice? I would posit No. As some have mentioned here, even those that saw slavery as morally wrong, like TJ, didn't exactly practice what they preach bc of "practical", mainly economic and/or political, reasons. So, like has been said repeatedly, it was a very complicated issue.

Sorry for the random thought. Just thinking out loud.

---

As I understand it, the abolitionists were mainly those who had done well economically and those who believed that slavery was a sin against God. Sure, poor people were against slavery in some respects because they didn't want to compete with large slave holders; hence the reason why many wanted to end the expansion of slavery.

BMX Bandit said:

---

it was the threat of the whip or being sold away from their families that kept slaves working hard in brutal conditions. That was an ever present threat.

the benevolent slave owner would have been the rare exception, not the common rule. It all part of the lost cause mythology.


I believe you have to judge someone by their time and circumstances. Jefferson is my favorite of the founders. His position on slavery is a fascinating study.

---

Not all slaves were in brutal conditions, most lived the same or better than poor white farmers. Slavery was mainly just seen as the nature of things. The other reality is that for many slaves life didn't improve after slavery ended and for some it got worse. They went from being a slave to a sharecropper in a segregated society. Their freedom was very limited. I'm a firm believer that the way Reconstruction was handled was horrible for blacks in the South and made many things worse. As a slave you at least had a protector who needed to feed, clothe, and house you. They had an investment in you. For an uneducated sharecropper you were very expendable and had little protection as a black person after Reconstruction until after WWII.

That's not "lost cause" mythology it is simple reality. Certainly many former slaves went North or even prospered in the South but most did not. All of my Mom's family grew up in rural South Carolina. They went to segregated High Schools and things changed very, very slowly there. It's hard to explain just how deeply ingrained the culture of separation was and especially how much of that separation was by blacks as much as whites. Was there a whip or other consequences in the background? Yes, but people generally just followed the rules and lived their lives even if they didn't like them. Slave owners didn't want to whip their slaves or be cruel to them, they wanted them to be happy. Slaves wanted to make the best they could of their lives. You have to remember that this is how society had been for all of them their entire lives and it was a deeply ingrained culture. There were horrible abuses. There were heroes like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass. There were absolutely those who tried to excuse away slavery and justify it with everything from the Bible and beyond. It's just an incredibly complex topic and it doesn't help that the current culture tries to make it as simple as possible and to make anyone that questions the narratives we were raised on to be a slavery apologist.

Quote:

---

Slave owners didn't want to whip their slaves or be cruel to them, they wanted them to be happy.

---

Freeing them would have made them happy I'd imagine!

Bull Meachem said:

---

No. There were pockets of abolitionist at the time and numerous states had ended slavery during Jefferson's lifetime. He had been exposed to their writings and he knew slavery was evil. He just didn't care enough to make his life more difficult.


He wasn't an ignorant rube who didn't know any better.

---

Know any better?! Are you really arguing that it took some "enlightened" abolitionists' profound writings to change the mind of a slave owners? One's stance on slavery has zero to do with ignorance and lack of knowledge. It was and is a completely moral decision.

Bull Meachem said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

No. There were pockets of abolitionist at the time and numerous states had ended slavery during Jefferson's lifetime. He had been exposed to their writings and he knew slavery was evil. He just didn't care enough to make his life more difficult.


He wasn't an ignorant rube who didn't know any better.

---

He was also a politician who cared about many things and slavery was just one of them. Had he freed his slaves and become an abolitionist he would have not only been bankrupted he would have lost all his political power in Virginia and thus not been able to have any influence at all. It's clear from his writings he struggled with ways to end the practice but he also knew the reality of the time.

What he did do though:

Author of the Declaration
Author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which set the precedent of not having a state sponsored church and then the 1st Amendment later.
Founded the University of Virginia
First Secretary of State, VP to Adams
Louisiana Purchase
Lewis and Clark expedition
Won the First Barbary War
He also asked Congress to ban the importation of slaves which he successfully accomplished in 1808.

---

So the ends justify the means? Jefferson was so severely in debt due to his awful spending habits that his family lost Monticello after his death. He and the other owners struggled to give up slavery because they enjoyed the lifestyle it provided them, just like most tyrants do. I personally see Jefferson in a more negative light than those who believed slavery was a "positive good" because he admitted he knew better but was too limp-wristed to actually do anything about it if it impacted his lifestyle. He didn't keep his slaves so that he could have political power and make the world "better". You are being entirely too forgiving.

Again, Jefferson's DoI is one of the most important documents written in the history of mankind and it continues to resonate even today. But he knew better about slavery and didn't really care.

His thoughts about it are similar to those who say we live on stolen land and then ignore what they should do if they actually believe that bull*****

---

Jefferson wasn't a saint nor did he claim to be. The reality is though he did make real efforts to end slavery and did far more about it than all but a few politicians of his time, especially a Southern politician. Realize as well that Jefferson's banning of the slave trade in 1808 was before the European powers who primarily got behind the idea at the Conference of Vienna in 1815. Also virtually every country that abolished slavery either did so gradually (as many states also did) or by compensating slave owners (such as what Britain did).

Hey but if you want to act like Jefferson didn't want to end slavery because he "enjoyed his lifestyle" and that "he didn't care" about slavery that's fine. I'm sure if you were in his shoes you would have done better.

Sid Farkas said:

---

After Graham Platner, the whole world knows the Dems never mean what they say about social justice and women.

---

The Nazis I vote for…are Democrats!

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Slave owners didn't want to whip their slaves or be cruel to them, they wanted them to be happy.

---

Freeing them would have made them happy I'd imagine!

---

The slave owners wanted slaves to be obedient. Of course the masters mistook that as happiness.

There is no such thing as a happy slave then and now.... that is a myth or worse a lie.

Jefferson could have ended his participation in slavery and chose not to because it would be hard for him. That's it. He knew it was wrong but continued to own them until his death. Out of 600 slaves that he personally owned, he decided to free two while alive. That clearly shows that it was about his economic security above all things morally wrong.

Again, it's exactly like the dolts who scream stolen land but refuse to give their land to the last tribe to own the land. It's just virtue signaling. He had the opportunity to free his slaves or even a significant number of them and he chose to continue living his comfortable lifestyle. He had the opportunity to do it and he chose the easier path for him.

Logos Stick said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

No. There were pockets of abolitionist at the time and numerous states had ended slavery during Jefferson's lifetime. He had been exposed to their writings and he knew slavery was evil. He just didn't care enough to make his life more difficult.


He wasn't an ignorant rube who didn't know any better.

---

Know any better?! Are you really arguing that it took some "enlightened" abolitionists' profound writings to change the mind of a slave owners? One's stance on slavery has zero to do with ignorance and lack of knowledge. It was and is a completely moral decision.

---

There is evidence to suggest that a significant number of slave holders saw no moral issue with slavery. I mean, according to some the slaves were happier under slavery than they were being free. And the churches in the south were used to justify slavery and it's "positive good" nature.

Yes, abolition is a continuation of Enlightenment and Liberal ideas. It's no coincidence that the two essentially came to be at the same time.

Bull Meachem said:

---

Jefferson could have ended his participation in slavery and chose not to because it would be hard for him. That's it. He knew it was wrong but continued to own them until his death. Out of 600 slaves that he personally owned, he decided to free two while alive. That clearly shows that it was about his economic security above all things morally wrong.

Again, it's exactly like the dolts who scream stolen land but refuse to give their land to the last tribe to own the land. It's just virtue signaling. He had the opportunity to free his slaves or even a significant number of them and he chose to continue living his comfortable lifestyle. He had the opportunity to do it and he chose the easier path for him.

---

Real question:

It's 1798

You are a newly freed slave in a slave state. You have no money, no food, no home, no property but the clothes on your back, no land, no education, no skills.

What happens to you?

Now multiply that by 600

Do you think the state of Virginia would just allow this?

I get "he should have just freed them" sounds really good but I bet he thought about that question a lot harder than modern folks ever do

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Slave owners didn't want to whip their slaves or be cruel to them, they wanted them to be happy.

---

Freeing them would have made them happy I'd imagine!

---

Many slaves headed north when freed. What did others do? Many stayed on as sharecroppers or paid servants. Was it Stockholm Syndrome? A lack of alternatives? Fear of the unknown?

I don't know.

Stayed at a Georgia State Park that we found out had been the home of the VP of the Confederacy, A.H. Stephens. (Nice park, BTW) His house servants stayed with him after emancipation, until they died. One of their children stayed, too. Other kids left when freed.

Maybe they were loyal and had been treated well. Maybe they were old, and had no place to go.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Jefferson could have ended his participation in slavery and chose not to because it would be hard for him. That's it. He knew it was wrong but continued to own them until his death. Out of 600 slaves that he personally owned, he decided to free two while alive. That clearly shows that it was about his economic security above all things morally wrong.

Again, it's exactly like the dolts who scream stolen land but refuse to give their land to the last tribe to own the land. It's just virtue signaling. He had the opportunity to free his slaves or even a significant number of them and he chose to continue living his comfortable lifestyle. He had the opportunity to do it and he chose the easier path for him.

---

Real question:

It's 1798

You are a newly freed slave in a slave state. You have no money, no food, no home, no property but the clothes on your back, no land, no education, no skills.

What happens to you?

Now multiply that by 600

Do you think the state of Virginia would just allow this?

I get "he should have just freed them" sounds really good but I bet he thought about that question a lot harder than modern folks ever do

---

Jefferson likely could have tried harder to free his slaves. But he inherited many of them, and more from his wife's family.

It was illegal to teach slaves to read and write, they usually couldn't own land or live in most towns. So what the heck do you do with them?

Add to that the fact that TJ was constantly in debt. He owed money on his slaves, He could no more free them than a modern farmer could turn loose cattle that he owes money on. They were a secured asset.

Bull Meachem said:

---

Jefferson could have ended his participation in slavery and chose not to because it would be hard for him. That's it. He knew it was wrong but continued to own them until his death. Out of 600 slaves that he personally owned, he decided to free two while alive. That clearly shows that it was about his economic security above all things morally wrong.

Again, it's exactly like the dolts who scream stolen land but refuse to give their land to the last tribe to own the land. It's just virtue signaling. He had the opportunity to free his slaves or even a significant number of them and he chose to continue living his comfortable lifestyle. He had the opportunity to do it and he chose the easier path for him.

---

He worked for practical solutions to end slavery. The most practical would be compensating slave owners, gradually ending the practice, and ending portions of the practice such as the slave trade. Bankrupting himself, losing his land for his family, and destroying his political career to be in debtors prison didn't make much sense. In fact because he had debts he probably would not have been able to legally, his creditors would likely have demanded his slaves be sold to pay them which is what happened to many of his slaves when he died. Many of the Founders ended up in very bad financial shape as well because they essentially made nothing from all of their efforts, the government was broke too.

aggie93 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Iced-T14 said:

---

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

---

Sally Hemings may disagree.

---

There is a very real possibility it was Thomas's brother that was screwing Sally Hemmings. The main evidence is the DNA that they shared, it only showed a male in the Jefferson family did it. Randolph was known for being very social and spending a lot of time in slave quarters.

---

Not taking a stand one way or another. Some schlub at the Smithsonian and an expert he worked with claims there is more analysis that points to TJ as having Jungle Fever

https://www.npr.org/2026/09/22/nx-s1-5791513/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemings-dna-hair-smithsonian

Of course, this is also out to promote this guys book

Burdizzo said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Iced-T14 said:

---

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

---

Sally Hemings may disagree.

---

There is a very real possibility it was Thomas's brother that was screwing Sally Hemmings. The main evidence is the DNA that they shared, it only showed a male in the Jefferson family did it. Randolph was known for being very social and spending a lot of time in slave quarters.

---

Not taking a stand one way or another. Some schlub at the Smithsonian and an expert he worked with claims there is more analysis that points to TJ as having Jungle Fever

https://www.npr.org/2026/09/22/nx-s1-5791513/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemings-dna-hair-smithsonian

Of course, this is also out to promote this guys book

---

They claim to have tested some "hair" they found.

Hair, without a follicle, is a poor DNA source and not considered reliable.

The Smithsonian is an anti-American institution and the author is hocking a book.

I don't know who the person is speaking with Beck is, but he doesn't have his history quite right.

The Bill that Jefferson put forward would have allowed slave owners to free slaves if they chose. The law was:

"No negro, mullatto, or indian slaves, shall be set free, upon any pretence whatsoever, except for some meritorious services"

It was rejected by the House of Burgesses, not vetoed by the king.

https://www.lightandliberty.org/opposition-slavery-chronology

HummingbirdSaltalamacchia said:

---

Maybe a random thought, but I have wondered how much of the abolitionist movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, in a similar vein to the modern "economic equality" movement, was rooted more in the jealousy of the rich, and less about some shared morality. Human beings are human beings and are self interested creatures . If they had the means would they still carry on their "moral crusade"? Would today's "economic equality" warriors even care if they themselves had money? Would many of the abolitionists of the 1700/1800s have been so against the practice of slavery if their own families/selves owned slaves? If their own economic livelihoods relied heavily on the practice? I would posit No. As some have mentioned here, even those that saw slavery as morally wrong, like TJ, didn't exactly practice what they preach bc of "practical", mainly economic and/or political, reasons. So, like has been said repeatedly, it was a very complicated issue.

Sorry for the random thought. Just thinking out loud.

---

It is interesting that most of the morally-superior abolitionists lived in the part of the country that didn't have the right climate or soil minerals to grow cotton.

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.

---

Read the original Declaration of Independence. He was in France when bill of rights were wrote.