She’d just take our posts and make a book out of them!

Without getting into a debate on the language of the Declaration, it is clear that slaves were regarded as property and thus exempted from the opening words. Women were likewise not regarded as the equal of landowning freemen, so Jefferson’s words are contextualized by the times in which they were written. No historian would argue otherwise. Thus his words are not quite so damning as you make it seem with today’s understanding of the terms. The Constitution, supported by men like Adams, also contained language that held slaves worth no more than 3/5 of a free man, so there was plenty of hypocrisy to go around. The point is simply that morality has evolved since those times despite your examples to the contrary. In fact the Civil War was nothing, if not a referendum on the morality of slavery that the good guys won. Adams was a fine intellectual, lawyer, and American statesman. He simply does not enjoy Jefferson’s stature, and while you may regard that as unfair, tearing down Jefferson’s legacy enhances Adams’ not one bit.

So just what was this evolutionary stage of the morality of slavery of the time? Many approved of it, but some contemporaries had said that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Did Jefferson subscribe to this latter view? He wrote it and signed it, so we can assume so. If questioned by James Hubbard, who sought his inalienable rights to life and liberty by escaping, Jefferson might have said it only meant white men, or he might have just said to watch what I do, not what I say. James may have unlawfully stolen nails from his master, Squire Jefferson. English people at the time thought Jefferson and his friends unlawfully stole a country from his majesty King George III. Jefferson, of course, invoked a higher law. So did James by his actions.

So he was not like any other slaveowner, a man of the time being judged by today’s morality. He is held to his own standards, so eloquently expressed in his own words. Hypocrisy was a moral and ethical blindness that saw one set of rules apply to himself and another to his workers. This issue resonates on this thread about Governor Spitzer, doesn’t it? Orwell called it double-think: the holding of two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, fervently believing both, and being unaware of their incompatibility.

The flogging in front of the companions reeks of the use of terror in aid of enslavement to deter further escapes. Human Rights Watch reports that the Saudi religious police use flogging to silence human rights protesters to this day. Flogging was not and is not routine corporal punishment: it is and has been deemed cruel and unusual punishment, ever since the Bill of Rights.

And about that evolutionary morality. It really evolved a lot, didn’t it? By 1860, that morality had “evolved” to the point where the number of slaves had not diminished, but had grown to four million, so much so that the Confederates started a bloody civil war to split the Union, to defend slavery in the south as the “cornerstone” of their society, and to spread it to the territories. Looks like evolution in reverse to me.

I fully agree you and Lincoln that Jefferson was a great writer, giving us the Declaration and the Virginia laws of religious tolerance as well as supporting the Constitution and Bill of Rights: the founding principles of our society. But he ran Monticello as a society that was half-slave and half-free, and seemed to think that the new nation could exist in a like manner. The overwhelming domestic issue in America in the 19th Century was slavery. It very nearly destroyed the nation. My original point was about the need to confront and consider Jefferson’s deeds, not his words.

I thought I remembered this Lincoln quote and finally found it. Here goes: “The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society.” See, we can wholeheartedly agree on something of substance.

Since VC does like our little discussions, I opted to post here. On the issue of James Hubbard (the younger) the issue is somewhat complicated and perhaps some persepctive would help the discussion. James Hubbard, the elder, was Jefferson’s trusted slave and served in his household as a “waterman” which granted him autonomy to travel to and from town allowing him to visit friends and family. His son, James Hubbard, the younger, was more of an intrepid soul and did continually get into trouble both at the estate and in his attempts to run away. As Jefferson biographer E.M. Halliday in his work “Understanding Jefferson” writes ” James Hubbard, one of the nailers, was caught stealing nails… subsequently ran away… [was] captured… [and] was “severely flogged in the presence of his companions.” Hubbard was certainly no angel given his past transgressions and his treachery seems established. It did not justify his servitude, but as with most human interactions was more complex than a mere example of human cruelty authorized by Jefferson. Similar punishments were meted out to young people with similar transgressions, so although this was severe, it was by no means rare. Not justified perhaps but clearly in keeping with the evolutionary stage of the morality of the time.

I certainly agree that there is evidence and truth, and truth has to be faced, and I am glad no offense was taken. I do not agree with your statement that there is no evidence to suggest Jefferson tortured his slaves. Given the current importance of the issue of torture, readers should know that my statement was truthful and not made lightly, being based in part on the fact that when one of Jefferson’s slaves escaped, he was captured, returned and flogged. Not sensorily deprived, not waterboarded, not subjected to raucus music, but flogged, severely, for simply trying to be free.

Readers can find at a source by a professional historian, at the OAH site, with a balanced treatment of the entire issue: QUOTE James Hubbard ran away and, for awhile, evaded Jefferson’s attempts to recapture him. When he finally caught Hubbard, Jefferson “had him severely flogged” and then sold him. UNQUOTE. Source: Thomas Jefferson and Slaves: Teaching an American Paradox, by Bruce Fehn, assistant professor and program coordinator of social studies education at the University of Iowa.

http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/earlyrepublic/fehn.html

As readers can see from the last post, there are always differences in emphasis and spin. This slave seems to have been an escapee, not a thief. He was flogged and sold, so it was more final than initial. It was severe. Of course Jefferson did no hold the whip, but he ordered it. Obviously, we can all disagree on whether a man is a product of the times, or rises above the times. I just observe that while Adams never made it to Rushmore, neither did he ever need to order a runaway slave of his flogged. Readers all have their favorites, but mine is Lincoln, the man who saved the union and freed the slaves.

I post under my real name, and we [or anyone interested] can continue by email to vtreacy@msn.com.

In fairness, I must correct one of my criticisms of Vince’s indictment against Jefferson. It does seem that while Jefferson did not personally flog his slaves, he did permit overseers to do so on his estate. This is a fine distinction and Vince was right to disregard it in his allegations. The record does show that this was not the norm in Jefferson’s household and was reserved principally for thieves. It was likely, according to most sources, a final rather than initial punishment and was usually preceded by a lecture on the desirability of morals from the squire himself. It also was in keeping with the corporal punishment prevalent in the day. That some of the most popular attractions in Colonial Williamsburg are the public stocks, attests to those times as well as ours. But these are parsing words, I know, and I must say that Vince’s criticisms, while seemingly out of proportion to a judgment on the great work of the man, remain, nonetheless, fundamentally accurate as sins of omission.

You are too kind. Maybe Vince and I can verbally joust more about our favorite Founding Fathers. I must confess bias in favor of Mr. Jefferson who is obviously my favorite. Vince is right that my hero had feet of clay, but don’t they all?

Please – the discussion was terrific!

How could JT mind a eloquent exchange with some real passion that didn’t cost 4,100 bucks. It seems to me that your argument was far more interesting than a peak at how Eliot Spitzer ruined his career, besmirched his family and …. this list is too long.

Please carry on – you were talking about things far more interesting and relevant than “Client 9 from Outer-space”

Agree with your sentiments and have no desire to bog us down either, but as you know there’s evidence and there’s truth and one does not always lead inexorably to the other. No offense taken.

There is evidence for all I wrote, and the evils of slavery need no elaboration here, but you may have the last word. I did not mean to offend you. I do not want the Professor’s site to get bogged down off-topic.

This is a real twist on language worthy of Orwell. He owns, rapes, and tortures slaves, but he is ambivalent. He captures and flogs escapees, but this is reasonable provision. Very many people before him and after him managed their self-preservation despite precarious financial situation without owning and abusing enslaved human beings. Please look up Lincoln, as just one example.

We know now that massive amounts of slave labor were used by Germany and Japan in support of their efforts in World War II, but I suppose they made reasonable provision for them, were ambivalent about it, and decided their precarious financial situation trumped morality.

Right you are, but Jefferson was ambivalent about the institution and made reasonable provision for his captives. He famously said “we have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

He was certainly no raging proponent of slavery, but, given his often times precarious financial situation, he decided self-preservation trumped morality. Not particularly unique or noble but I cannot cast the first stone here either. Could you? Could Adams?

Jefferson had many good qualities, but the author of the Declaration that all men are created equal was in fact the hypocritical owner of hundreds of slaves, while Adams never owned or hired a slave in his life.

Just wanted to point that out.

Vince

for your consideration Impeachment of the Vice President and President of the United States of America.

subject: HBO mini series: Jefferson Rules vs. Adams’ Ghost

after getting all worked up about the John Adams mini series on HBO i went and did some research on the web.

I immediately was reminded of the bitter rivalry between Adams and Jefferson.

Adams was a Federalist

Jefferson a Republican

after the War of 1812, I beleive the two sides reconciled some more, and they both passed away on July 4, 50 years on the day of the start of the nation.

I email this, for again propaganda seeks to disenfranchise the nation.

No movie for Jefferson. But a movie for the Federalist.

Adams defended the British during the Boston Massacre and learned to regret it. He nominated Washington to be General during the Revolution and became Vice President to Washington. Then was elected himself.

You will recall the plight of Alexander Hamilton, another Federalist. Secretary of State to President Washington.

This nation of ours is impressed by the Federalists. This nation would not be what is started to be and promises to be without Jefferson. Whom in fact is the author of the Declaration.

To quote a famous President John Adams: “Thomas Jefferson Survives”

There will be a rush to say with this HBO series the “Revolution” is remembered.

Don’t buy the Hype.

Federalism is now our destruction plain as day as Martial Law is Federalism Uber Alles.

Jefferson Vigilence – Jefferson Results

Is not now the ENTIRE nation seeking Impeachment thru

JEFFERSON RULES outside of Congress???

do you see the reasoning sirs?

Impeachment is a Patriotic Imperative which enters the White House, Adams’ ghost will not prevent it.

Would some one call in ‘the men in the white coats’, please?

Judging by that exchange the only one who knew what the hell was going on was Kristen. Maybe she should run for office.