The Monster of Monticello (NYT on Jefferson)

New York Times ^ | November 30, 2012 | Paul Finkelman

[nickcarraway]

THOMAS JEFFERSON is in the news again, nearly 200 years after his death — alongside a high-profile biography by the journalist Jon Meacham comes a damning portrait of the third president by the independent scholar Henry Wiencek.

We are endlessly fascinated with Jefferson, in part because we seem unable to reconcile the rhetoric of liberty in his writing with the reality of his slave owning and his lifetime support for slavery. Time and again, we play down the latter in favor of the former, or write off the paradox as somehow indicative of his complex depths.

Neither Mr. Meacham, who mostly ignores Jefferson’s slave ownership, nor Mr. Wiencek, who sees him as a sort of fallen angel who comes to slavery only after discovering how profitable it could be, seem willing to confront the ugly truth: the third president was a creepy, brutal hypocrite.

Contrary to Mr. Wiencek’s depiction, Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery, and even more deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks, slave or free. His proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience.

There is, it is true, a compelling paradox about Jefferson: when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, announcing the “self-evident” truth that all men are “created equal,” he owned some 175 slaves. Too often, scholars and readers use those facts as a crutch, to write off Jefferson’s inconvenient views as products of the time and the complexities of the human condition.

But while many of his contemporaries, including George Washington, freed their slaves during and after the revolution — inspired, perhaps, by the words of the Declaration — Jefferson did not. Over the subsequent 50 years, a period of extraordinary public service, Jefferson remained the master

[DoughtyOne]

Of course it did.

The Founding Fathers laid down the foundation to do away with slavery in time. They realized that if they pushed the anti-slavery position, the thirteen colonies would never have signed on.

I once heard a very low figure for how many of the worlds slaves at the time, were brought to the territory that was or was to become part of the United States. Considering the populace of the region at the time, I believe it’s likely we were a minor player.

So who is it that is constantly trashed for taking part in slavery. Why the United States of course.

This isn’t really about slavery at all. It’s about taking down the big dog on the block.

I’m not excusing the ownership or enslavement of anyone here. I am however willing to take things in context, and realize what was accepted practice globally around the time of our founding, was not as a result of the concerted efforts of our Founding Fathers.

Ours is not a perfect world. Ours is not a perfect nation. There are times when we put our nation on track to correcting a wrong we cannot correct in our own time all things considered.

I think our Founding Fathers found a balance that was better than any balance applied to a nation’s founding prior to or after the fact.

I would like to see the Leftist Constitution they think would be better. Put it out there Lefties. Let everyone see the stinking pile of c that it is.

[Altura Ct.]

Who gives a crap what the NYT or any other Marxist says about T. Jefferson?

[GeronL]

A lot of countries still had slavery after the US abolished it. Some have banned it in name only too

[Ciexyz]

Thank you for that teaching.

[JeanLM]

“I once heard a very low figure for how many of the worlds slaves at the time, were brought to the territory that was or was to become part of the United States...”

Only 5% of the slaves brought to the Western Hemisphere came to North America. The vast majority were sent to the West Indies or South America. The number for what became the USA was between 500-600,000 souls.

If they had stayed or never been brought here, would their fate have been better or worse? By the conditions at the time (1620-1820) they would have likely been dead in intertribal wars.

[rollo tomasi]

Madison eventually reaped what Washington sowed (Following the Federalist Party thinking with appeasing the British after the Revolution) when he allowed the British to hang around the frontier (Which created havoc) despite the Treaty of Paris and the Jay Treaty calling for their ouster. Washington was to politically "scared" to do anything about that. There were plenty of sailors enslaved and killed in the name of pragmatism by Washington's Administration that ticked off a lot of people back then, namely Jefferson and Madison. The British became more dug in, thus...1812. Also Jefferson and Madison had good reason to go after Hamilton's and Adams' (Whom Hamilton disliked but shared ideological aspirations) desire to create a "artificial aristocracy" which Jefferson and any free man would of hated, but promoted by the higher ups in the Federalist Party including your vaunted Hamilton. Plenty to criticize Jefferson on, but his instance (And Madison's) that the strong central government Washington started promoting while Hamilton pulled his strings is not one of them.

"For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy." TJ to JA

What I find interesting is Hamilton being praised by all kinds a leftist for promoting the strong central State while lambasting Jefferson for his stance on the subject. Of course leftist love quoting Jefferson's about religion but that is a different subject in terms of authoritarian control Hamilton promoted (That led to their differences).

Self-governemt vs. being ruled by the elite, Jefferson was for the former while Hamilton for the later. A good reason for Jefferson and Madison to turn their backs on the Federalist Party.

JEFFERSON: “A private central bank issuing public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army.” “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

HAMILTON: “No society could succeed which did not unite the interest and credit of rich individuals with those of the state.” “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.” (How did Hamilton propose to control the beast? By faith in the elites, lol)

[LongWayHome]

Lol, he’s not my Hamilton, since I have mixed feelings about him. I should have made it clear that my issues with Jefferson & Madison concerning Washington & Hamilton were more about their personal treatment than the political issues of the day.

[rollo tomasi]

For the record...:

JEFFERSON: “A private central bank issuing public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army.” “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

HAMILTON: “No society could succeed which did not unite the interest and credit of rich individuals with those of the state.” “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.”

...are not authentic quotes, some people led in and go off the historical rails a bit, especially some of the Jefferson's quotes in Internet Land, but the quotes pretty much matched their ideological stance on the subject.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks GeronL. As I understand it, there are still nations today that have slavery, as you intimated.

And yet you hear our nation denigrated constantly (for what ended 150 years ago), and never hear anyone’s outrage that it still exists elsewhere today at this very moment.

We really struggled with slavery and the subsequent racism. I’m sorry any of it took place. What can you say now, other than I am glad that it is over.

By hanging on to it, the current generation is being severely under-served by their elders, harboring anger and reverse-racism. It’s a real shame.

It’s being used to justify not getting and education and apply themselves. This will lead to hardship for them, as well as the society that has to support them when they can’t.

[rollo tomasi]

Ok, sorry, a lot in common (Jefferson/Madison/Hamilton/Washington) but on certain subjects, out right hatred which can led to some misgivings between political foes, especially while trying to form a new Country/government.

[DoughtyOne]

I once heard a very low figure for how many of the worlds slaves at the time, were brought to the territory that was or was to become part of the United States...

Only 5% of the slaves brought to the Western Hemisphere came to North America. The vast majority were sent to the West Indies or South America. The number for what became the USA was between 500-600,000 souls.

I had heard that figure before, but I had thought it referenced the complete body of African people that were taken to be sold as slaves.  Here you address it in terms as if we're only addressing the body of slaves brought to the Western Hemisphere, what I take to mean the Americas.

If the slaves taken to Europe are excluded, then the 5% becomes even less in the overall scheme of things.

If they had stayed or never been brought here, would their fate have been better or worse? By the conditions at the time (1620-1820) they would have likely been dead in inter-tribal wars.

I'm thinking worse, but then I don't have the right to make that call.  Slavers (some of which were African lest we forget) had no right to take those folks out of their tribal communities, no matter what their fate may have been.

You and I share the same thoughts here, so I'm not trying to make a corrective statement here.  Thank you for your response. .

[GladesGuru]

“I respect Jefferson’s intellect, but I lost some respect for how he and Madison screwed over George Washington & to a lesser extent Hamilton.”

“Screwed over” in what way?

[GladesGuru]

Slaves were often sold by teh”tribal communities” to the slave traders. Slaves were a common commodity throughout human history until England and America used their superior military force to end it.

Now, the Muslim world is slavery’s last stronghold. Please note that the new Egyptian ‘Constitution” allows slaves.

Islam, to know it is to loath it.

[Last of the Mohicans]

Seems a rather odd way to justify an unjustifiable abuse of our fellow men.

[combat_boots]

Meanwhile, back on the wadi........

“New Islamist Constitution Brings Back Slavery to Egypt”
November 30, 2012 By Daniel Greenfield

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/new-islamist-constitution-brings-back-slavery-to-egypt/

[Joe 6-pack]

:how about come to the conclusion that for a lot of people at the time, owning a slave was not a big deal and not worth much thought??"

The same folks who wring their hands in anguish of the paradox between Jefferson's views on liberty and slavery somehow see no hypocrisy in algore's views on global warming and his fuel consumption.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

Agreed. In my office I have a copy of a Stuart portrait of Washington and a bust of Jefferson. They look at each other. Sometimes I wonder what they are thinking. (The Washington is this one, at the Metropolitan Museum in NY, http://www.artsunlight.com/artist-NS/N-S0007-Gilbert-Stuart/N-S0007-057-george-washington-the-vaughan-portrait.html)

These were great men and their contributions spectacular. But by the 1790s, while Washington was thinking of and working for a nation, Jefferson was thinking of and working for himself.

[tanknetter]

Now, in the interest of the Communist agenda, it has become necessary to demean and degrade them.

If you want to see this already carved in stone, you don't have to go any further than the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington DC.

The MLK Jr. Memorial is situated on the Tidal Basis, just to the left (clockwise) of the FDR Memorial. It features a larger-than-life sculpture of MLK Jr. emerging from a block of stone.

The MLK Jr. seen in that sculpture is a very angry one. It's actually glaring in contempt and disdain ... right across the Tidal Basin at the Jefferson Memorial (while the renditions back happens to be turned to the Lincoln Memorial).

This is all by intent.

[HMS Surprise]

Unfortunately for your argument to work future generations will pay much much more to maintain similar “benefits.” Sorry for your luck. You participate in a ponzi scheme, expect to get burned.

[Bigg Red]

Whoa! Believe me, I agree that it is a ponzi scheme. My point is that those of us at Social Security age had NO CHOICE about this horrendous “investment”, which took money from every one of our paychecks over the last 60 years. You make it sound as if seniors chose to participate and are now just robbing others.

BTW, although I am personally eligible, I have not registered to receive SS “benefits”, i.e., some return on all of the money that was automatically deducted from my pay against my will.