@thanatokephaloides @thanatokephaloides

This is from the Monticello site, which obviously attempts to portray Jefferson in the best light possible. This is excerpted from a page that attempts to come up with reasons why Jefferson did not free his slaves by speculating.

A single paragraph cannot do justice to the issue of Jefferson's failure to free more than a handful of his slaves. Some of the possible reasons include: the economic value of his human property (at certain times, his slaves were mortgaged and thus could not be freed or sold); his lifelong view that emancipation had to go hand-in-hand with expatriation of the freed slaves; his paternalistic belief that slaves were incapable of supporting themselves in freedom and his fear they would become burden to society; his belief in gradual measures operating through the legal processes of government; and, after 1806, a state law that required freed slaves to leave Virginia within a year. Jefferson wrote that this law did not "permit" Virginians to free their slaves; he apparently thought that, for an enslaved African American, slavery was preferable to freedom far from one's home and family.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/property

Reading further on that page shows Jefferson certainly did not hold that all men are created equal. So, on that alone, he was a hypocrite. And as they say, "But wait--there's more.

The site seems to be bending over backwards to excuse Jefferson by speculating about possible excuses. I'm not buying it. Also, even the site's speculation is based on excuses Jefferson himself created. "Gee, you shouldn't free a slave unless you send him or her back to Africa." Even the site, however, doesn't attempt to explain why Jefferson didn't do that, even as to the very few slaves Jefferson did free, one of whom was Sally Hemmings' son.

Some things we know for certain: Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves at times. Slaves were worth a lot. US slaveowners were among the wealthiest people on the planet. Slaves were virtually free labor, which maximized the profits of a plantation. In addition, they waited on the white members of the household hand and foot--cleaning, cooking, minding the children, doing the laundry--whatever was required for the slaveowner to live a luxurious life.

Jefferson was a big spender who did not stint on himself, even if he had to borrow. His investment in his many slaves had to have been huge. I don't think he wanted to take an economic hit by freeing his slaves--or by paying them. Either of those courses would have required quite severe downward modification of the lifestyle he clearly enjoyed and diminution of the estate he could leave his white children. And perhaps even cleaning out his own chamber pot.

A few more things are certain: Jefferson did not mortgage his slaves at gunpoint. He did so voluntarily, so he could borrow money to support the lifestyle he enjoyed. Also, his slaves were not always mortgaged. So, there were times when he could have freed them, but he never did.

Jefferson was obviously not only literate, but erudite. Yet we have no statement from him, either written by him or quoted by others in their writings to explain why he did not free his slaves, only speculation and rationalizations. I see that, too, as telling.

#1

So the voters in this country have been ping ponging back and forth between two awful choices since they stole the place from the indigenous people living here.

Actually, a considerable swath of today's voters had nothing to do with "stealing the place" at all. For example: virtually all black Americans had themselves stolen from themselves, and then were kidnapped here and sold as slaves to the same people who really did steal this place from its indigenous inhabitants (i.e., the Anglo-American 0.1%). What castigators of Thomas Jefferson for not liberating his slaves fail to realize that he didn't own those slaves (or anything else) in the free-and-clear. The London banksters really owned them all; Jefferson simply "held and managed" them. George Washington actually owned what he owned, so he could be more generous with manumissions (and was).

Another example applies to me personally: the Irish. Our indigenous places were stolen from us, and then we were force-dumped here -- at our own expense -- again, by the same set of culprits, the Anglo-American 0.1%.

And whose doing is it that Native Americans, Black/African Americans, and Irish Americans (and all other Americans as well) get the "crap or shit" voting selections we get these days? You got it, it's the 0.1%!

All of which explains why we Irish 99%ers have the habit we do of showing up to support the Natives, the Blacks, the Latinos, et al., when they agitate for their rights! After all, it's really all one and the same Cause we're fighting for.

And every March 17, they're all Irish anyway!