Thomas Jefferson Scandal, and how France & England were more progressive than Revolutionary America

I watched the History Channel documentaries on Thomas Jefferson & George Washington & Abraham Lincoln. 

In the Jefferson documentary, historians mention that France had abolished slavery before the American Revolution, and that the slave-girl, Sally Hemmings that Jefferson could have legally sued for freedom under France's laws, and she would have won her freedom immediately. Thomas Jefferson was committing an illegal act by having an enslaved person stay with him at his luxury hotel in France yet, he did so anyway and convinced her that he would give her preferential treatment if she moved back to Virgini with him. She did go along with his persuasions, although historians said as a slave, she was considered a piece of property and had limited agency in the matter. Ultimately, he gave her a room in his mansion underneath a stairwell to have easy access to her for nighttime dalliances. In addition, the children he sired with her were given job-training development as carpenters, the girls, as seamstresses. When Jefferson died, he didn't free his slaves as the seemingly more conservative George Washington had in his will. Jefferson allowed his mistress, Hemmings to move away with the sons and daughters he had sired with her. All other slaves were sold to pay off his estate's massive debts, many of whom never saw their parents/children/relatives ever again which is ironic from the "Apostle of Liberty".

In the Abraham Lincoln documentary, it talks about how England was able to abolish slavery through its legislature, while the United States found it necessary to lose 600,000 soldiers in the Civil War to do so.

In the George Washington documentary, King George III issued a declaration that everything west of the Appalachian Mountains was forbidden to British subjects, and American colonists were forbidden from purchasing land there. This makes me think of my artist friend, Tali Vinas' observation that oftentimes progressive governments--at least in 2026--maintain the presence of a king. Spain and United Kingdom have monarchs yet, they have more progressive policies on their books than the United States has. As a person who has corresponded with Derrick Jensen, a fierce environmentalist from Crescent City, California, and the anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan from Eugene, Oregon, I find it ironic that had England maintained control of the American continent, there is a possibility that the wholesale slaughter of the indigenous--seen in the Sitting Bull documentary--would never have happened by the Americans if the United States hadn't expanded beyond the thirteen original colonies. Another major irony is that leftists often rail against imperialism but England, an empire under King George III barred expansion west of the Appalachian Mountains which should make anti-capitalists and environmentalists happy. England and France, which both maintained empires into Africa were able to ban slavery within their own nations and colonies without a catastrophic Civil War, with a record number of casualties up to that point.