1. The war against the Barbary Pirates actually began as a battle between people expelled from Moorish Spain and the dynasty of Charles the Fifth.

   How nice to see us getting involved in an unbroken chain of bitter feuds that have been going on since the middle ages.

   Jefferson, as cool as he was, was also a major asshole, by the way. Don’t get me started with him. At least Washington had the pent-up dignity to free his own goddamn slaves when he died.

   Jefferson also behaved in very conniving and duplicitous ways, and is largely responsible for the birth of politcal parties in America. Thanks alot Mr. Jefferson, wunderkind of the Declaration, which you mostly borrowed from your mentor, George Mason.

   Posted by Wedge Antilles | September 16, 2006, 8:32 pm

2. I think that we would be better off with an end-table as president. At least it couldn’t declare wars.
   It would also be more intelligent than what we currently have!! This guy is an idiot!!

   Posted by Phil | September 16, 2006, 8:38 pm

3. Yeah, but it’s hard work…

   http://www.simsadler.net/HWG2.html

   Posted by Sol | September 16, 2006, 9:17 pm

4. Ha! That almost made it into the post, but got the edit. Thanks Sol!

   Posted by Scott | September 16, 2006, 10:09 pm

5. Re: Jefferson

   The issue of slavery and the founders is a whole lot more complicated than most people realize. I always considered the founders who owned slaves to be hypocritical, until I read Thomas Sowell’s book “Black Rednecks & White Liberals.” He has a chapter dealing with the complexity of the issues of slavery in early America, and it’s a very informative read. For those who don’t know, Sowell happens to be black, so his perspective is not that of some white guy trying to justify anything.

   Anyway, Jefferson inherited (most of?) his slaves, as did Washington. Jefferson actually did free a number of his slaves while he was alive, when he was able to. Freeing a slave was an expensive proposition, at least to do so humanely, as you couldn’t just toss them out the door. You’d have to either provide them with safe transport to a non-slave state (and supply them with enough funds and supplies to get their lives started) or you’d have to give or buy them property and equipment and housing, and either way it would be pretty unfair not to provide at least a rudimentary education for them if they’re going to survive in the free world, since as slaves they would have been completely uneducated. But he was deeply in debt and simply couldn’t afford to do so for all of his slaves. He also couldn’t justify freeing his slaves on his death as that would have placed his estate (and heirs) even deeper in debt.

   Washington freed his slaves not on HIS death, by the way. His will stated that they would be freed only upon his wife’s death, so she wouldn’t be saddled with financial burden, and as he had to children there were no heirs to pass any such debt on to.

   Also, there were laws in most Southern states that required that authorities approve the freeing of a slave. Jefferson entered a motion all the way back in 1769 to allow slaveowners to free their slaves unilaterally but it was defeated by a huge margin. Jefferson also included, in an early draft of the Declaration Of Independence, a criticism of the King for having basically foisted slavery on the colonies, as he overrode at least Virginia’s attempt to ban slavery early on (it was removed due to pressure from the south). He also drafted a constitution for Virginia in 1776 that included a prohibition on the further importation of slaves, and in 1783 he included in a new draft of the Virginia constitution a proposal for gradually emancipating slaves, also removed due to pressure from slaveholders. In 1784 he proposed a federal law that would ban slavery in all western territories, also defeated.

   I won’t defend Jefferson on many other issues, especially those usurpations of power during his presidency, but I would have to say that on the issue of slavery, Jefferson was actually quite decent, given the times. Yes, ownership of human beings is abhorrent, but the issue is a lot more complicated than that, and simply freeing people who have been given no education and who own nothing and setting them off on their own absolutely has dire consequences that can’t be ignored.

   Posted by Range | September 16, 2006, 11:20 pm

6. When you refer to Colin Powell “war criminal that he is” I can well remember the night that entertainer, Harry Belafonte, appeared on the Larry King Show, when Bush first started his folly in the distant sands, calling toth Powell and Condi Rice “House slaves.” This term was taken from the days of slavery which strangely also created a class system with the slave community, those working in the master’s house considered themselves to be superior to those working in the fields. Fugture historians will not be kind to Powell’s memory since he essentially put the imprimature on Bush’s follly when he made that lie-based speech at the U.N. I doubt if the Bush gang could have proceeded with their war if he had resigned rather that to support the coming war. Perhaps serving in the army for a lifetime creatfes this type of obedience and we can ponder the excuse the Germans leaders made at the Nuremburg Trials “I was only following orders!!”

   Posted by Steve, WW2 vet | September 17, 2006, 3:59 am

7. RE: Jefferson, point well taken.

   I think I was trying to demystify him a bit. I think there is tendency among libertarians to idolize the man, as I once did as a once-young-”born-again” libertarian.

   But we learn so much more about history when we see his shortcomings as a human being, do we not? One other aspect of him is that he saw his form of government as a revolutionary idea to spread around the world like wildfire, that the French and American Revolutions were liberal ones and not a conservative ones. He was enamoured with those French with those guillotines, who were murdering anyone who had ties to the Old France and all their sympathizers. Oh well, you can’t make an omelette, without…— you know what he might have said, if it had been the 20th century.

   You might not like the terms settled by Jay’s Treaty, but Jefferson and his associates did everything conceivable to subvert it and provoke another war with Britain, in effect, joining up with the revolutionary French. That would have been disasterous. And he tried his hardest to quietly defame Washington, who was really only trying to stake a moderate middle course between the partisanship around him. But all that time, he was sweet talking the President like a big phony.

   Mr. Jefferson, who seemed radically opposed to all forms of state power, suddenly decided to excercise more than his fair share of it once he got the reigns of power.

   All the same, you can’t deny that Jefferson had some astonishing intellect and was a true visionary, and lived his life with great courage.

   The same cannot be said for many Oval Office occupants of this century.

   Posted by Wedge Antilles | September 17, 2006, 1:46 pm

Leave a reply