NYC removing Thomas Jefferson statue from City Hall

| October 21, 2021

More revisionist history and erasure from the tolerant left. This time New York City is following in the footsteps of places like Madison, WI and voted unanimously to remove a nearly 200 year old statue of author of the Declaration of Independence, third US President Thomas Jefferson.

Breitbart reports;

Public art officials in New York City voted unanimously earlier this week to remove a 188-year-old statue of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the United States, from the city council chamber at City Hall.

The decision is based on the fact that Jefferson owned slaves. That fact is not mentioned in his biography posted on the White House website, which reads in part:

Freckled and sandy-haired, rather tall and awkward, Jefferson was eloquent as a correspondent, but he was no public speaker. In the Virginia House of Burgesses and the Continental Congress, he contributed his pen rather than his voice to the patriot cause. As the “silent member” of the Congress, Jefferson, at 33, drafted the Declaration of Independence. In years following he labored to make its words a reality in Virginia. Most notably, he wrote a bill establishing religious freedom, enacted in 1786.

Jefferson succeeded Benjamin Franklin as minister to France in 1785. His sympathy for the French Revolution led him into conflict with Alexander Hamilton when Jefferson was Secretary of State in President Washington’s Cabinet.

ABC reported on the move, based exclusively on slavery and race:

The City Council’s Black, Latino, and Asian caucus released a statement on the statue’s removal, citing a letter to Democrat New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

“This administration owes it to the more than five million New Yorkers of color our members – past, present and future – represent, to resolve that the individuals memorialized within the confines of our People’s House be reflective not only of the best traditions of our city’s history and its diversity but unquestionable character,” it read, in part.

Not everyone supports removing the statue, and it has become an issue in the New York City mayoral race. [Mayoral] candidates Curtis Sliwa and Eric Adams both shared their thoughts on the matter.

“Do we suddenly wipe out the images, the markings, the names of all those great patriots because they were slaveholders and slave holding was quite common at that time?” Sliwa said.

“There are a number of appropriate figures to honor in our seat of government who are more directly meaningful to our people and are more reflective of our city’s history than Thomas Jefferson,” Adams said.

While Jefferson did indeed own slaves, it was rumored during his time and confirmed centuries later that, he literally loved them.

Category: "Truth or fiction?", Democrats, Liberals suck, Politics, SJW Idiocy

Comments (35)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ChipNASA says:

    Ahem,
    Go ahead. You can’t change what happened no matter how much you want to erase history.

  2. Commissar says:

    I disagree with removing this statue and think it is an idiotic action.

    I admire a Jefferson, he is one of the founders I admire most.

    That being said, this is the clingiest thing I have ever read on the internet;
    “While Jefferson did indeed own slaves, it was rumored during his time and confirmed centuries later that, he literally loved them.”

    Mason, that sentence is actually crazy. Not just propaganda; it is a deranged.

    Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s property. There is no written evidence he “loved” her. There is indisputable evidence he fathered children with her.

    He did free THEIR children in his will, but Sally Hemings was not freed by Jefferson while he lived or in his will. He also freed no other slave family he owned. Not even upon his death.

    Sally was permitted to leave the estate after Jefferson’s death but she was never freed.

    So, we know Jefferson has a long term sexual relationship and fathered children with at least one of his slaves. We know the name of that slave, Sally Hemings, and we know the names of their children.

    We don’t know he loved her, we can believe he did because of the long term sexual relationship. But that is not proof of “love”. We can assume he loved the children he sired with her. But he did not free them until he died and never publicly acknowledged they were his children.

    There is no evidence he “loved” any of his other slaves. He owned 600 slaves in his life. More than 100 at any given time…he never freed a single slave during his life.

    He only freed ten of his slaves and only upon his death in his will. 6 of them his children. All of them related to his children or Sally. None of them were Sally.

    10 out of 600 slaves. Even upon his death. This is not evidence he loved his slaves.

    Slaves in Monticello were also physically abused, three of Jefferson’s slaves overseers were known to be particularly cruel and violent.

    Jefferson was a slave owner. Any notion that he was “one of the good ones” is the true revisionist history. There were worse, there were far worse, but Jefferson treated his slaves as most wealthy gentleman with a reputation to uphold…as property and had overseers do the “dirty” job of maintaining, working, punishing, controlling, and “disposing” of his slaves. The fact that Jefferson sired children with a slave that was also his property and remained the property of his estate long after his death does not make him “one of the good ones”.

    Note: the use of “dispose” in quotes refers to Jefferson’s own written ledgers in getting rid of his less desirable slaves though trades or sale.

    • Sapper3307 says:

      Your lil buddy?

    • President Elect Toxic Deplorable Racist SAH Neanderthal B Woodman Domestic Violent Extremist SuperStraight says:

      “There is indisputable evidence he fathered children with her.”
      From other evidence that I’ve read, it was not TJ that fathered children with Ms Hemings, but TJ’s younger brother Randolph that done the deed(s).

      https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/

      But, to quote one of your own favorite females, and former Sec of State, “At this point, what difference does it make?”

      • Commissar says:

        You are right, not indisputable. But overwhelming.

        I did hear that Jefferson’s nephews were rumored to have possibly fathered the children. But the DNA evidence ruled them out.

        Hemings became pregnant with her first child when she with Jefferson in Paris. Randolph was not in Paris.

        It is interesting you provided a link to Monticello.org, they have refuted the Randolph claims. Randolph being the father of any of Hemings children has been ruled out…with the exception of Eston Hemings. The rest of the children are overwhelmingly likely to have been Jefferson’s.

    • Mason says:

      Mason, that sentence is actually crazy. Not just propaganda; it is a deranged.

      I really pity you people that have zero sense of humor. A life devoid of joy if you ask me.

      • Poetrooper says:

        Yeah, our vaunted graduate student who doesn’t have the wit, humor or reading comprehension to recognize a playful play on words.

        What a tool…

      • Hack Stone says:

        Someone needs to update their Sarcasm Recognition Software. Fortunately, there is a somewhat reputable proud but humble woman owned software company formerly located in Bethesda MD that is bundling it with their Y3K software. You better hurry, the next millennium is only 979 years away.

      • rgr769 says:

        Ever notice that the people that believe in totalitarian ideologies are extremely humorless? It seems to be a standard personality trait among zealots of every stripe.

    • SFC D says:

      “Mason, that sentence is actually crazy. Not just propaganda; it is a deranged”.

      Commissar, if you could turn your “perpetual outrage” down to a low simmer, you may have recognized that as humor, a play on words, a pun. It must truly be a miserable existence for you, living a sad and lonely life, screeching to be heard, to be taken seriously.

    • Hatchet says:

      Commie-czar-ZEK snivels:
      October 21, 2021 at 11:36 am

      – I disagree with removing this statue and think it is an idiotic action.

      If you think it’s idiotic, then you really ought to support your statement as to explain WHY..

      – I admire a Jefferson, he is one of the founders I admire most.

      AND..? Why do you admire him and what are the appreciable qualities you actually admire?

      – That being said, this is the clingiest thing I have ever read on the internet;
      “While Jefferson did indeed own slaves, it was rumored during his time and confirmed centuries later that, he literally loved them.”

      Hands-down, you’re an expert on ‘clinginess’ but the rest is just more unsupported supposition by you…

      – Mason, that sentence is actually crazy. Not just propaganda; it is a deranged.

      So, why is Mason’s sentence ‘actually crazy’ or deranged..? YOU CALLED MASON OUT – DIGNIFY YOUR STATEMENT!

      – Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s property. There is no written evidence he “loved” her. There is indisputable evidence he fathered children with her.

      Unsupported statement. Where are your supporting FACTS, Lars?

      – He did free THEIR children in his will, but Sally Hemings was not freed by Jefferson while he lived or in his will. He also freed no other slave family he owned. Not even upon his death.

      – Sally was permitted to leave the estate after Jefferson’s death but she was never freed.

      More unsupported suppositions..

      – So, we know Jefferson has a long term sexual relationship and fathered children with at least one of his slaves. We know the name of that slave, Sally Hemings, and we know the names of their children.

      FACTS, Lars? Know you hate facts but…

      – We don’t know he loved her, we can believe he did because of the long term sexual relationship. But that is not proof of “love”. We can assume he loved the children he sired with her. But he did not free them until he died and never publicly acknowledged they were his children.

      Yet again, more unsupported supposition… *yawn*

      – There is no evidence he “loved” any of his other slaves. He owned 600 slaves in his life. More than 100 at any given time…he never freed a single slave during his life.

      Yet again, more unsupported supposition…

      – He only freed ten of his slaves and only upon his death in his will. 6 of them his children. All of them related to his children or Sally. None of them were Sally.

      FACTS, Lars. Where’s the supporting FACTS for this?

      – 10 out of 600 slaves. Even upon his death. This is not evidence he loved his slaves.

      Unsupported by any cited FACTS, Lars…

      – Slaves in Monticello were also physically abused, three of Jefferson’s slaves overseers were known to be particularly cruel and violent.

      PROOF of this?!

      – Jefferson was a slave owner. Any notion that he was “one of the good ones” is the true revisionist history. There were worse, there were far worse, but Jefferson treated his slaves as most wealthy gentleman with a reputation to uphold…as property and had overseers do the “dirty” job of maintaining, working, punishing, controlling, and “disposing” of his slaves. The fact that Jefferson sired children with a slave that was also his property and remained the property of his estate long after his death does not make him “one of the good ones”.

      ALL of this is unsupported DRIVEL.

      Note: the use of “dispose” in quotes refers to Jefferson’s own written ledgers in getting rid of his less desirable slaves though trades or sale.

      Yet again, prattling on about things you CLAIM to have read somewhere and apparently do NOT comprehend. No supporting FACTS to any of it(no real surprise there..). Yup. Still as mendacious as ever, still unable to spell or form a simple cohesive logical sentences and still talking about things you simply don’t understand. Still an illiterate ultracrepidarian FRAUD…

      • 5JC says:

        Lord knows I don’t agree with commie on much of anything but almost everything he wrote he was lifted directly from Monticello’s website slavery FAQs on Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

        https://www.monticello.org/slavery/slavery-faqs/property/

        While this may not make it true or accurate it is a source, one of the most credible sources on Jefferson known.

        So far as why Jefferson didn’t free Sally; according to her, she struck a bargain with him while they were living in France. He had no legal way to compel her to return to the US as slavery was illegal in France so she told him if he would agree to free all of her children on his death then she would return willingly.

        https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/

        • Hatchet says:

          Understood. And fair to say it would seem you had no trouble citing source-links/material and even posting a link or two to support such.
          I was pointing out -throughout- that Commie-czar-ZEK did not provide any source links/materials or attempt to support any of his statements and cited opinion only. Goes the old saying ‘Opinions are like assholes – everyone’s got one. In Commie-czar-ZEK’s case – his opinions are usually full of contradictory shit… Cheers Mate!

    • Av8or33 says:

      If being a slave owner and having sex with slaves is the reason for canceling Thomas Jefferson, why do liberals not cancel Mohammed he owned slaves and supported the institution. Mohammed had no problem at all with the institution of slavery as long as they were not Muslims. Sex with female slaves was considered a right of the owner. I’m not trying to offend Muslims or have any racist intent just curious about the double standards.

      • ChipNASA says:

        Let’s not forget the pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia involved in the good old Middle Eastern prophet.
        But I digre…. LET’S GO BRANDON!!!!!!
        😀 😀 😀
        *sniff, sniff, sniff*.
        HEY, ANYONE UP FOR A PIZZA???? BILL??? HIL????

        • 5JC says:

          I think having sex with nine year olds pretty much covers it for the prophet. He did free some of the slaves that he porked and made them some of his 11 sister wives.

          Speaking of Slavery and the Religion of Peace, Oman abolished slavery in 1970, and Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished slavery in 1962. Mauritania became the last state to abolish slavery August 2007.

          Those dates aren’t typos.

          Although I have never seen a statue of Mohammad on government property in the US as this would be offensive to Muslims. There is a Frieze at the SCOTUS.

          There used to statue in NYC at the courthouse but it was removed a long time ago at the request of several Islamic Nation ambassadors. Images of Muhammed are deemed offensive to most Muslims as no one can really say what he looked like and to suggest that you somehow know is offensive. When Muhammed is depicted in film the actor may only repeat word for word what was said in the Koran and the image of the actor is whited out. Adding words that are not recorded is straight up blasphemy.

          http://www.payvand.com/news/15/aug/1152.html

          Statues are particularly bad as they imply idolatry.

          • 5JC says:

            I guess I should mention that even though slavery is illegal in Mauritania (and everywhere) it is estimated that 25% of the population remain slaves. In Yemen perhaps 15%. Sudan had an open slave market into the 90s which has since gone underground. In SA… well let them talk:

            “In 2003, Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, the Senior Council of Clerics, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” Muslim scholars who said otherwise were “infidels”. In 2016, Shaykh al-Fawzan responded to a question about taking Yazidi women as sex slaves by reiterating that “Enslaving women in war is not prohibited in Islam”, he added that those who forbid enslavement are either “ignorant or infidel”.”

            https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/world/mauritania.slaverys.last.stronghold/index.html

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world

  3. BennSue says:

    I believe the term “loved” used here is a euphemism for “for unlawful carnal knowledge” but Der Commissar seems to not have a intuitive bone in his body.
    For those in Rio Linda, I’m using bone as a replacement for another word.

  4. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    WTF are those political minion slugs going to do next, replace it with a statue of George Floyd? The movie “Idiocracy” was supposed to be a comedy, not a prophecy!

  5. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    Jefferson is easily my favorite founder for many reasons, most of which is easily viewed in a single comment he made. It does me no harm for neighbor to believe in twenty gods, or no god at all. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg. Meaning if there is no victim there is no crime and there is zero reason for any government interaction in this situation.

    With respect to the slave ownership, it’s definitely a problematic issue. Dave Chappelle even notes the odd story of the black farmer who was a freed slave but turned out to be a great farmer with a head for profit and successful crop harvesting, so much so when he started to become very successful he also bought some slaves to help him become more successful.

    The fact a black man bought slaves doesn’t make the slave owning right or moral it simply illustrates one of humanity’s more uncomfortable realities, we are usually little more than a product of our times with rare exceptions.

    Jefferson was also a product of his times, but he and others had a vision of a different future. In that regard they also share one of humanities other realities, that deeply flawed humans are also capable of great ideas that change the future. Ideas powerful enough to change the world. How many Democratic Republics existed at the time they told the king to bugger off and declared their independence?

    How many nations followed suit in the years afterwards?

    None of that excuses their flaws, it simply points out the reality of being human. Flawed humans can be great visionaries, great leaders, and great people while still exhibiting abhorrent behavior in other aspects of their lives.

    All of these modern devotees of equity and justice imagine themselves to be of the highest moral order, which is a lie. While I do not have 8 or 9 decades of experience the almost 7 that I do have shown me one constant about my fellow humans, none of us are anywhere near perfect. Most of us have at least one or two things for which we are ashamed, for which we know we were not at all at our best, for which we would change if we could.

    It is never wise to view the past through the lens of modern morality, even less so when that modern morality is filled with its own lies about what is or is not true.

    None of us would be here without Jefferson and company…none of us would be so privileged to be sitting here sharing our thoughts in first world comfort without the founders.

    They were what they were for their times, that is a fact for both good and ill. But they created this nation, they also started this notion that the people who were being governed were due a say in picking the voices of their elected representatives to fashion a nation instead of being told what to do by some inbred, vindictive little people who pretended to be ordained by god to rule over their neighbors.

    It might not be the best system the Founders came up, but it sure as fuck is far better than many of the others I’ve seen all around this great big world of ours.

    Pretending otherwise is to deny reality.

    • SFC D says:

      VoV, your post should be sent to every history teacher, in every grade from kindergarten to graduate school, read in assembly, framed and posted in the hallways of every school in America.

    • rgr769 says:

      Every one of those men who signed the Declaration of Independence was putting his life, his property, and the survival of his family on the line. If the British Empire had won the war, they were all likely to hang for treason and their property forfeited to the Crown. Under English law that was the only penalty for treason, just like the only penalty for murder was death. Without their disregard for their own lives, we would not have an independent nation.

      • USAFRetired says:

        That is one of the principal reasons that Bills of Attainder were specifically forbidden in the Constitution.

    • KoB says:

      Spot on VoV…Nailed it. Preach on Brother, the Choir says AMEN!

      White people…the most evil ones that God placed on this Earth. They keep forgetting that one of the FIRST (ht 2 Roh-Dog) people that brought/had Africans as slaves in what is now known as America was a Black man. And his Black slaves were purchased from Black Africans.

      Anybody still think that the revision of History will stop when all of the Confederate War Memorials are gone?

  6. What about the Supreme Rulers VP harris who’s family owned slaves down in Jamaica way back in the day. How come she can’t be removed???????. Not to many people know about this because it doesn’t fit their narrative. I believe this came out in a book written by a relative.

  7. Sapper3307 says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHwp8-FgwHo
    Bill had a thing or two also.

  8. USAFRetired says:

    I demand that Franklin Roosevelt be removed from the dime. His E.O. interned native born US citizens of Japanese descent in interment camps during WWII

  9. David says:

    So when are we getting outraged about the folks who perpetrated the original crime of making people saves? New World slave buyers didn’t just crap their new property, they purchased people who had already been enslaved. You have African shiefs, Arab traders, and all sorts of different nationality slave ship oners and operators, all of them in the game well before the slaveholders in the US. What about the Brits who sentenced poor English and Irish to virtual slavery for years or decades on end? (Oh, wait, they were white and therefore priveleged.) How come ONLY the final slave owners are so reprehensible?

  10. Sapper3307 says:

    MLK jr supported slavery thru his known/documented solicitation of prostitutes.
    Statue gotta come down, ASAP!

  11. Hatchet says:

    So, what’s next? Someone deciding that it’s high-time to bulldoze/dynamite Mount Rushmore..?

    History cannot be erased, revised or undone only learned from..

  12. nobunny says:

    Reparation is not enough. Retribution is the name of the game.

    • Hatchet says:

      Ahhh! Sorry, I’d almost entirely forgotten about that whole ‘mindless retribution’ thing…

      I will seek reprogramming. Obviously, a worn memory chip…