Marc K. Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 I consider The Declaration of Independence to be one of the greatest documents ever written. It is a beacon of freedom which defines individual rights and government's purpose. It is so beautifully written and I consider its author to be an enlightened genius and personal hero. Yet, today in the halls of academia (not saying much I know) he is considered by many a villain whose philosophic genius must be discounted because of his slaveholding and hypocrisy. (I was reminded of this in another thread where someone says "all slaveholders are evil" -- a statement which I must agree with). I defend him by pointing out that it is his writings which eventually helped end slavery (how ironic). Still, these are stinging rebukes. Others withhold judgement on the basis of historic time and context which sometimes rings hollow to me since from his writings he clearly knew slavery to be immoral. How do you reconcile his actions with his thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 A more accurate statment would be: All slaveholding is evil, and all slaveholders are commiting an evil act. Many great men have committed evil acts, and, though they are not to be excused from their evils, they may remain great men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelical Capitalist Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 I heard a quote somewhere that I believe was attributed to Jefferson. Maintaining the institution of slavery, he said, was "like holding a wolf by the ears: you don't like it, but you don't dare let go." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invictus Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Here is an article written by Jefferson on slavery: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/slavery.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 I share your love for the Declaration of Independence. It must be remembered that in Jefferson's time slavery was not merely allowed, it was enforced by law. Jefferson repeatedly attempted to free his slaves, but the state of Virginia's constitution forbade the existence of "free negroes" within its borders and the surrounding states had restrictions against the importation of "free negroes". Jefferson tried -- unsuccessfully -- to get the state constitution changed. In addition, the draft of the Declaration of Independence that Jefferson submitted to Congress included what John Adams called, "the vehement philippic against negroe slavery". It is the last of Jefferson's charges against the king: “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in persons of distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting these very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.” (All emphasis is Jefferson's.) Only Jefferson could have written something so eloquent, moving and DAMNING. Unfortunately, Congress omitted this passage from the final document. I have always believed that had Jefferson participated in the Constitutional Convention, American History would be significantly different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxus Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 Thomas Jefferson is by far the greatest American born phillosopher of all time and he realized that it was the philosopher that determined the destiny of nations not politicians or kings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 There is no doubt that Jefferson was racist. But this is missing the point. Accusing Jefferson for failing to see the flaw of racism is like accusing Newton of failing to grasp relativity: it reverses the hierarchy of knowledge. Jefferson should be admired as a hero of freedom because the laid the groundwork that provided his successors the inspiration to reject slavery and racism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt M. Weber Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 The quality of one's character does not in and of itself affect the quality of his work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurosophist Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 The quality of one's character does not in and of itself affect the quality of his work. Except in the quality which directly pertains to that work... You normally wouldn't hire a pedophile to babysit your kids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 I did not know that Jefferson was a racist. I googled him, and found some quotes that are defenitely racist. That's horrible. However, this cannot change your perception of the Declaration of Independence. Your view of it depends on its content, not its author. As to "all slaveholders are evil"... What if by officially owning a slave, but treating him as a sovereign being, you would be saving him from real slavery somewhere else? I don't mean this as an implication on this particular case, but it sounds like a dogmatic, context-dropping rule. The official fact of "owning" a slave on paper does not encapsulate the real relationship in all cases. In forming an opinion on a particular individual, you must take into account all aspects of his life, character, and actions. An opinion doesn't have to be black or white, because many people are not black or white. I think in this particular case more study is required (at least for me), before forming a verdict. WHY was he racist? Did he just adopt the idea uncritically from his environment, or was he an active advocate? Did he believe white supremacy to be a scientific fact, and if so - what did he offer as evidence (were the evidence even remotely plausible, given his context)? Did he ever change his mind? Was he ever confronted on this subject, and how did he react? How did he treat his slaves, and other black people? How did he react to evidence contradicting his racist theories? I think if you give me accurate answers on all these questions, I can form a more accurate opinion. On the meantime I can remind you that some men are geniuses in one area while completely irrational or ignorant in another. If this is the case, as it seems, we are dealing with two contradicting parts of a personality. Which means Thomas Jefferson the great hero never fully existed, but was only suggested by the real Thomas Jefferson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 erandror Did you have a chance to read my post earlier in this thread? It addresses some of the questions you raise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 erandror Did you have a chance to read my post earlier in this thread? It addresses some of the questions you raise. Hmmm. Nope. Sorry. I'll check it out now. Well, now that I have - I think I need more than the answers you gave. You treated mostly the subject of slavery, while I'm more concerened with Jefferson's purported racism. I think racism is a very ignorant notion, and I find it hard to believe that in Jefferson's time he was not be exposed to contradicting facts or ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felicity Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 Condemning Jefferson for having slaves is like condemning the Wright brothers for not inventing the space shuttle. One step at a time, surely... It is because of the Jeffersons of the world that many of their descendants arenot racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted May 9, 2004 Report Share Posted May 9, 2004 I did not know that Jefferson was a racist. I googled him, and found some quotes that are defenitely racist. That's horrible. Keep in mind that virtually everyone in the civilized world prior to the 19th century held views that we would today call racist. There are reasons for this. Before that time, the entirety of their contact with people of other races suggested that they were all ignorant, barbaric aboriginals. It was a mistake to generalize on the basis of the inessential characteristic of race and say that all dark-skinned peoples are necessarily irrational, but that is the most obvious difference they could see at the time and it is no surprise that people several hundred years ago would make that kind of error. Jefferson and others during his time were the ones who began identifying this as an error and provided the philosophical basis for the eventual abolition of slavery (and "racism" for that matter). To put it briefly: The problems of slavery and racism were not created by Jefferson; rather, he, and those like him (from like-minded contemporaries of his all the way up through Lincoln), inherited and helped solve them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRoberts Posted May 9, 2004 Report Share Posted May 9, 2004 Thank you Ash Ryan for adding context to history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argive99 Posted May 11, 2004 Report Share Posted May 11, 2004 Thank you Ash Ryan for adding context to history. I agree. Excellent post Ash. I hate when Jefferson is condemned as a racist. To me a proper understanding of any historical era or figure must take into account the context of knowledge available to that era or person. Jefferson lived during a time where the state of biological and anthropological knowledge was at its infancy. Most of the founders thought that Africans or "dark skinned" people were not anthropologically connected to the human race. This was wrong and led to terrible consequences but their context must be observed. And to repeat what has been said before, it was because of the advances that the Founders made in the field of political theory and applied government that we live in a culture where chattel slavery is now unthinkable. I say chattel slavery and not total slavery because unfortunately voices for the return of the draft are resurfacing (from both the left and the right) and the draft is nothing more than sacrificial slavery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Condemning Jefferson for having slaves is like condemning the Wright brothers for not inventing the space shuttle. No, it is not. The difference is that Jefferson, of his own free will, denied the rights of his slaves. The Wright Brothers constructed something, they did not willfuly deny or abrogate rights of other people. Keep in mind that virtually everyone in the civilized world prior to the 19th century held views that we would today call racist. There are reasons for this. Before that time, the entirety of their contact with people of other races suggested that they were all ignorant, barbaric aboriginals. It was a mistake to generalize on the basis of the inessential characteristic of race and say that all dark-skinned peoples are necessarily irrational, but that is the most obvious difference they could see at the time and it is no surprise that people several hundred years ago would make that kind of error. Jefferson and others during his time were the ones who began identifying this as an error and provided the philosophical basis for the eventual abolition of slavery (and "racism" for that matter). To put it briefly: The problems of slavery and racism were not created by Jefferson; rather, he, and those like him (from like-minded contemporaries of his all the way up through Lincoln), inherited and helped solve them. If Jefferson cannot be blaimed for slavery just because during his era, many of his peers held racist views, then Lenin cannot be blamed for the wrongs he did because many of his peers held those views and altruists cannot be blamed for the views they hold because most of the people consider altruism as right. A great man does not bow down to the majority. George Washington freed his slaves. Why couldn't have Jefferson? Jefferson advocated abolishing slavery, yet didn't free his own slaves. This can be nothing other than hypocrisy. Jefferson might have written great and rational things, but he was not practicing what he preached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRoberts Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Jefferson advocated abolishing slavery, yet didn't free his own slaves. This can be nothing other than hypocrisy. Jefferson might have written great and rational things, but he was not practicing what he preached.Jefferson was from the South. Freeing his slaves meant a WORSE life for the slaves, and possible capture and enslavement by somebody much, much crueler than Jefferson. Many slaves did not want to be 'free' because they enjoyed a very healthy, free life with their owners. This can be nothing other than hypocrisy Be careful of jumping in and attacking people like this. Especially when you have very little facts, and are around people (myself) who highly admire Jefferson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 I agree with Tommy. Opposing slavery and racism in Jefferson's day was not like inventing relativity or the Space Shuttle. Many people at the time recognized that blacks were just intelligent and rational as whites and deserved to be treated as equals. The facts were freely available to everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trader Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Jefferson was from the South. Freeing his slaves meant a WORSE life for the slaves, and possible capture and enslavement by somebody much, much crueler than Jefferson. Many slaves did not want to be 'free' because they enjoyed a very healthy, free life with their owners. To add to this, I was told in my U.S. History class that laws against freeing slaves were, in fact, put in effect as a measure of protection for slaves. Contrary to popular impression, slaveowners had some degree of responsiblity for the welfare of their slaves. These laws prevented a slaveowner from "freeing" slaves who had become undesireable due to old age, bad health, or injury and thus absolving himself of any responsibility for their welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montesquieu Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Jefferson was from the South. Freeing his slaves meant a WORSE life for the slaves, and possible capture and enslavement by somebody much, much crueler than Jefferson. Many slaves did not want to be 'free' because they enjoyed a very healthy, free life with their owners. Be careful of jumping in and attacking people like this. Especially when you have very little facts, and are around people (myself) who highly admire Jefferson. The good things that Jefferson did, which are all part of American lore, should be greatly admired. However, one need only look to Jefferson's "Note on Virginia" to see him cobble a feeble defense of the slavery together. One must also remember that Jefferson often contradicted himself on many issues of which slavery is probably the most blatant. To the above quotes, there was a sizable free black population in the South at the time the country was founded and until 1830 there were more anti-slavery and abolitionist groups in the South than in the North. To say that many blacks did not want to be free because they enjoyed a "health, free life with their owners," is an absurdist claim in the extreme. First of all, as a slave one is never "free" in any sense of the word. Secondly, any pleasurable experience one got while in slavery depended wholly upon who owned you. One might make out pretty well under George Washington (if you know anything about how Washington handled his slaves this will make more sense, he was lenient to the point of ruining the fortunes of Mt. Vernon) but under other owners ones experience may have been entirely different, with frequent beatings for not meeting the cotton quota or some other infraction. The problem with being free for black people was racism and the fact that most were unskilled initially and had to take the worst jobs. But even in the early 1800's many free blacks in the south were artisans of various kinds in many Southern cities. One should also veer away from the notion that someone didn't want to be free, because 1) it was a favorite argument of pro-slavery southerners against moves to limit or abolish slavery and 2) it takes the position that since one has been enslaved for a period of time and thus doesn't know freedom, that they no longer have any right to it. It is never acceptable to own other people, and their immediate emancipation, no matter how long they were owned is the only proper recourse. On a sidenote, Washington's estate provided pensions to all the older slaves that were freed because he understood that they had been raised as slaves and might not adjust very well to freedom, which makes different demands upon a person. I believe the last pension payment occurred in the early 1830s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Jefferson was from the South. Freeing his slaves meant a WORSE life for the slaves, and possible capture and enslavement by somebody much, much crueler than Jefferson. Many slaves did not want to be 'free' because they enjoyed a very healthy, free life with their owners. Jefferson had no right to decide what was good or bad for his slaves and then force them to act the way HE wanted them to act. Giving Jefferson the freedom to decide other peoples' fate is no different than giving a dictator the freedom to decide what the people should do. Be careful of jumping in and attacking people like this. Especially when you have very little facts, and are around people (myself) who highly admire Jefferson. I have not made any false claims about Jefferson. If we cannot condemn Jefferson for his handling of slavery, then we have no right to admire him for his achievements. I am not denying that Jefferson didn't accomplish anything. What he achieved very few can achieve. But IMO, his dark side almost completely overshadows his bright side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 The question here is not political - who had the right to do what, and why. The question here is moral - who treated men around him in what fashion, and how was it a reflection of his own moral values. Thus, politically Jefferson had no right to maintain his slaves. But morally, a very good case can be made that the choice he made was less unhealthy than some others. I'm not willing to go and completely say he was right not to free the slaves, but I at least will deny that his slave ownership was an easy open-and-shut case of hypocrisy and immorality. After all, what do we mean by slavery? Legally that definition is having a right to initiate force upon another person. However, that's not what we really think about when we think of slaves. We think of whips, a lot of wanton pain, endless toil without respite for men, unwanted sexual advances and rape for women. Which of these two aspects of slavery is more immoral for a person? To hold a 'deed' to another man but yet pay him well and treat him with utmost respect, or unjustly beat a man into submission while admitting his sovereignty and rights? Thus, not all slave owners are created equal. Not all slave societies are equally bad. Thomas Jefferson treated his slaves with utmost deference, fully as other human beings on par with him. The deed he held on them gave him legal permission to initiate force upon them. Had he taken advantage of this permission, one could speak of his immorality. But he knew he wouldn't beat and curse his men, and rape his women, and they knew they could expect a good salary and a respectful treatment. A stupid paper with a stupid stamp on it is a nuissance, just a tiny wrinkle on what overall is a very moral existence, a behavior we all ought to aspire to, and that few of us here are anywhere near. As JRoberts said, don't be so quick to condemn great men, especially by following the lead of modern historians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 The question here is not political - who had the right to do what, and why. The question here is moral - who treated men around him in what fashion, and how was it a reflection of his own moral values. Thus, politically Jefferson had no right to maintain his slaves. But morally, a very good case can be made that the choice he made was less unhealthy than some others. I'm not willing to go and completely say he was right not to free the slaves, but I at least will deny that his slave ownership was an easy open-and-shut case of hypocrisy and immorality. After all, what do we mean by slavery? Legally that definition is having a right to initiate force upon another person. However, that's not what we really think about when we think of slaves. We think of whips, a lot of wanton pain, endless toil without respite for men, unwanted sexual advances and rape for women. Which of these two aspects of slavery is more immoral for a person? To hold a 'deed' to another man but yet pay him well and treat him with utmost respect, or unjustly beat a man into submission while admitting his sovereignty and rights? Thus, not all slave owners are created equal. Not all slave societies are equally bad. Thomas Jefferson treated his slaves with utmost deference, fully as other human beings on par with him. The deed he held on them gave him legal permission to initiate force upon them. Had he taken advantage of this permission, one could speak of his immorality. But he knew he wouldn't beat and curse his men, and rape his women, and they knew they could expect a good salary and a respectful treatment. A stupid paper with a stupid stamp on it is a nuissance, just a tiny wrinkle on what overall is a very moral existence, a behavior we all ought to aspire to, and that few of us here are anywhere near. As JRoberts said, don't be so quick to condemn great men, especially by following the lead of modern historians. It is precisely morally where Jefferson was extremely wrong and immoral in not freeing his slaves. Were Jefferson's slaves allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted and work on whatever they wanted without any restrictions? If yes, then Jefferson had implicitly freed his slaves. But they were NOT allowed this. I point you to this thread where there was some discussion of Jefferson and Slavery. thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montesquieu Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Thomas Jefferson treated his slaves with utmost deference, fully as other human beings on par with him. The deed he held on them gave him legal permission to initiate force upon them. Had he taken advantage of this permission, one could speak of his immorality. But he knew he wouldn't beat and curse his men, and rape his women, and they knew they could expect a good salary and a respectful treatment. A stupid paper with a stupid stamp on it is a nuissance, just a tiny wrinkle on what overall is a very moral existence, a behavior we all ought to aspire to, and that few of us here are anywhere near. As JRoberts said, don't be so quick to condemn great men, especially by following the lead of modern historians. He did not treat or think of his slaves as full human beings on par with himself, this is an absurdity. Read Jefferson's own writings on this subject, yes he thought Britain introducing African slavery was immoral and wrong, but he also considered the Africans themselves to be an inferior sort of people. And of course he took advantage of his ability to initiate force on his slaves, though I don't know if he did so personally, I very much doubt that. But slavery, by its very nature, requires the use of force, and the continual threat of force to stay effective. Slaves had to be beaten for slacking off, force is the only incentive a slave has to work at all. No slave at Monticello could walk up to Jefferson and announce he was going to leave to head north and get an industrial job, if he did or tried to do such a thing he would be caught and most likely be beaten very harshly. I don't think anyone on this thread is saying that everything positive Jefferson did is negated by his holding of slaves or his overtly racist comments about slaves, but it does no one any good at all to try to "pretty up" the reality of slavery at Monticello by making it appear to be some sort of utopia when it wasn't and could not be. Plus trying to make Jefferson sound like the ideal slave-holder is wrong when it is clear, historically, that Washington did more to help and free his slaves than Jefferson ever did for his own. Thomas Jefferson was a great man, but he was a slaveholder who did not end up freeing his slaves and actually laid the foundations for the pro-slavery arguments the south would use right up to the Civil War, and then afterwards to rationalize segregationist laws. To not deal with this simple fact of history is a terrible evasion of reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.