by James A. Bacon

I was proud of the University of Virginia last night.

The Young Americans for Freedom organized an event, “Defending Thomas Jefferson,” featuring National Review editor Rich Lowry and Texas Congressman Chip Roy, both UVa alumni. Organizers believe it was the first time that conservative speakers from outside the university had been invited since former Senator Rick Santorum had appeared four or five years ago. (It’s been so long that memories were hazy about the details).

Many posts on social media had been critical, and there were rumblings that a protest might be organized. But university police posted outside the Newcomb Hall lecture room provided security, and nothing remotely unpleasant occurred.

More than 150 people attended the event, which easily met expectations. What I found most encouraging was the healthy contingent of Black students who came to hear what the defenders of the university’s founder might say. One could deduce that many were not sympathetic to the views of the speakers because they sat silently through the applause lines. But they listened respectfully and, when the time came for questions, a number asked questions that were pointed but polite. (I am pleased to note that one Black student, who spoke with an African accent, said that she found Jefferson inspiring.)

The event was exactly what a great university should be doing — exposing students to different perspectives and facilitating the civil exchange of views. I am delighted that the Jefferson Council played a role in helping make it happen.

(View the Young America’s Foundation livestream on YouTube here.)

As for the substance of the presentations… Lowry made it clear that Jefferson is not memorialized because he was a slaveholder, he is memorialized despite the fact that he was a slaveholder. We put him on a pedestal for his achievements, which helped make America the country it is today.

If you revile Jefferson, Lowry asked the audience, why did you come to the university he founded? Why didn’t you go to James Madison University? Oops, Madison was a slaveholder. Why not George Mason University? Oops, Mason was a slaveholder? Why didn’t you go to Virginia Tech? (That was a laugh line.)

It was a valid rhetorical point but not likely to persuade anyone. More effectively, Lowry listed some of Jefferson’s accomplishments that moved the nation from a state of less freedom and equality to a condition of more freedom and equality, even if he did not end the institution of slavery.

  • He wrote the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, including the immortal phrase declaring “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to be universal human rights. In later years, that phrase became a cudgel against slavery and segregation.
  • He wrote Virginia’s statute for religious freedom.
  • As a Virginia legislator, he ended the feudal-era practices of entail and primogeniture, which perpetuated an aristocratic system of land ownership.
  • He decried slavery as an evil institution, writing, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”
  • As a member of the Confederation Congress, he authored the 1784 Northwest Ordinance that would have ended slavery in the Northwest Territories (northwest of the Ohio River) had it not failed by a single vote.
  • As president, he ended the U.S. participation in the Atlantic slave trade.
  • After the egalitarian spirit of the American Revolution faded, a new generation of slaveholders arose in the South who argued that slavery was a positive good, not just for the slaveholders but the slaves themselves. They considered Jefferson’s words antithetical to their views.

It was a good list, and I learned some things I had not known. (T.J. proposed banning slavery in the Northwest territories? Who knew?) I would have explored only one other idea: If Jefferson deplored slavery, why didn’t he free his slaves? The answer: that was easier said than done. In one case slaves acquired from inheritance were bound legally by the conditions set by the inheritance. In another case, slaves served as collateral for Jefferson’s substantial debts. All laws encoding slavery were were unjust, but Jefferson could not break them with impunity.

Also, neither speaker addressed the Sally Hemings controversy but in passing. It is widely accepted by the public that four of Jefferson’s six children were born to his young slave, Hemings. Some of my compatriots at the Jefferson Council consider this a vile slander that remains unproven and unlikely. Frankly, I have not studied the matter in enough depth to have an informed opinion, so I shall evince no opinion. I simply note that the fraught question of Jefferson’s alleged  “rape” of his slave concubine was never raised.

Congressman Roy took a different approach, tying Jefferson’s legacy of liberty to contemporary political issues. All humans are flawed, and Jefferson was no exception. He will be (or has been already) judged by God. We should not waste time defending Jefferson the man, Roy suggested. But we can embrace his ideas.

“We put our faith in principles, not princes,” said Roy. Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence were his “timeless gift to humanity.”

The American system of government is broken, said Roy, and presidential actions are increasingly tyrannical. The principles of liberty and freedom are as relevant today as when Jefferson espoused them. “You’re never on the wrong side when you’re on the side of freedom.”

Note: The author serves as vice president-communications of The Jefferson Council.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

21 responses to “Jefferson Defended”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    It is good to hear that civil discourse and the airing of diverse views are occurring on the campus. Were any faculty members in attendance and, if so, did the participate in the question and answers?

    1. I saw no sign of UVa faculty at the event, but there were a lot of people there, so I can’t say for sure.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Why didn’t you go to James Madison University? Oops, Madison was a slaveholder.”

    Madison did not found JMU, you know..,

  3. dick dyas Avatar

    I enjoyed the event. More students than white hairs. The questions were civil, if not penetrating. Rich Lowry made good points, and skirted the obvious hypocrosy- question of Jefferson’s positions on slavery. Roy made a political speech of Biden current events, which was distracting at best.
    He called Biden’s vaccine mandates “un-Constitutional”. ( Someone should send him the Supreme Court decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 ( 1905), the lead case in this area.)
    There was no need for a police presence. There was a musical event going on outside. I don’t think most students were aware of the speech.
    Good show, YAF. Lets do some more!

    1. Randy Huffman Avatar
      Randy Huffman

      A very quick read of a couple synopsis of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 ( 1905), talks about how the court sustained the States right to require a smallpox vaccine. It made reference to the State legislature evaluation of the vaccine safety. The fact pattern here is quite different, with a Presidents Executive Order (not a law passed by Congress, let alone by the states), and a vaccine still going through evaluations.

      https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/197/11.html

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        The govt has some pretty wide latitude in taking measures to protect the public from threats.

        The can, for instance, unilaterally require you to leave your house – or evacuate an area or actually be held against your will if you are deemed a threat to others. They can require use to use seatbelts and imprison you if you drink and drive.

        It’s hard to imagine just on what basis a court would rule otherwise.

        1. dick dyas Avatar

          Key language of Jacobson decision:
          “The good and welfare of the Commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts,” Harlan said “upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            but when there is a declared emergency, the govt has tremendous power, no?

            They can determine the type of emergency, the scope and extent, and the measures to deal with it.

            They can, for instance, determine that NO ONE is allowed to have “defensive” weaponry beyond the limits of what they set.

            They can make you leave your home or keep you from returning to it.

            They can force you to stay imprisoned for cause or if you have a contagious disease like ebola or other.

            They can determine what you can do with your own body even!

          2. dick dyas Avatar

            To say nothing of the military draft.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            yep. And if you do have a contagious disease – prevent you from working at job that serves the public –

            The govt right to protect the safety and welfare of the public is pretty strong.

            What the anti-mandate folks are arguing for is basically a specific exemption – as opposed to something in the law or Constitution that prevents the govt from exercising those powers overall.

            They may get a judge in the lower courts but I don’t see how in the world the SCOTUS would agree.

          4. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            me thinks you all are getting way ahead of yourselves. I don’t know where to start, but again, Biden issued an Executive Order, he did not get legislative authority.

            Millions of people strongly disagree that choosing not to get vaccinated is a threat to public health. Those who have chosen not to have their own personal reasons, a number of which are medically based. As these issues wade through the courts, I doubt widespread mandates will survive, as they shouldn’t.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            You do have that right – but you don’t have a right to infect others or endanger others and that’s the issue.

            You can refuse to be vaccinated, but that comes with consequences in terms of being around others. You don’t have a right to endanger others and the govt has the authority to restrict you on that basis.

          6. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Everything I have read points to the following”

            If your vaccinated, the likelihood of getting seriously ill from COVID is greatly diminished.

            If your young and healthy, the likelihood of getting seriously ill from COVID is negligible, regardless of your vaccination status.

            If you are one of the nearly 50 Million people in the US who have had COVID, you carry antibodies, the likelihood of getting it again are diminished.

            There are documented cases of issues with the vaccine for some people.

            If you are at high risk, you need to take major precautions around people, whether they are vaccinated or not.

            I’m not anti Vax, I got it soon after it was available to me. I have no issues interacting with anyone, vaccinated or not.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            this part I’m not sure about:

            ” If you are one of the nearly 50 Million people in the US who have had COVID, you carry antibodies, the likelihood of getting it again are diminished.”

            I’m not sure the antibodies you have are anyone near as potent as the vaccines and boosters.

            ” If you’ve had COVID-19 before, does your natural immunity work better than a vaccine?

            The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection.

            More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
            Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
            Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination”

            https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

            and this article suggests that you should still get vaccinated even if you had Covid:

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/fully-vaccinated-and-had-covid-19-no-rush-for-a-booster-shot-experts-say-11633870803

          8. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            This may be correct, I am not a researcher and am not arguing one way or another. I have seen articles arguing that you get better anti bodies form prior infections.

            I also know several vaccinated people who got COVID (all mild symptoms), so getting vaccinated does not fully protect you.

            Time will tell. Have a good night.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            You too. Thanks.

          10. And yet Bug Out Biden, with no mask, coughs and spits on people in public…..

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    I applaud the positive approach!

    And I think it’s interesting and significant that black folks are coming and asking questions.

    But, I do have one “but”.

    And that is – there are a lot of folks who have made significant contributions to the country and they do not have statues nor memorials.

    And the bigger question – to me and I suspect to others – is who merits memorials and why?

    Obviously some folks thought memorials were warranted for a lot of people that other folks disagreed with and especially over time. Jim Crow put up a slew of “memorials” that were reviled by many, yet those memorials were actually intended to insult and demean and that’s where the oppositions to “memorials” started to gather steam.

    So what SHOULD we do with memorials in public places and institutions where not everyone agrees that the subject deserves to be memorialized and they find such memorialized offensive and repugnant? Do we memorialize people who owned slaves in public places where African Americans are in attendance?

    And let me show you a Confederate War Memorial in a public place that is NOT reviled and NOT advocated to be taken down because it represents people who fought to defend slavery.

    https://miro.medium.com/max/1000/1*rPjUnDVnknH8JLNGdNRiSA.png

    “The Kirkland monument was erected by South Carolina, Virginia, Collateral Descendents of Richard Kirkland, and the Richard Rowland Kirkland Memorial Foundation; its dedication in 1965 was the last centennial event in the area. The large sculpture of 22 year old Kirkland and a wounded Union soldier sits on a base inscribed with the words: “At the risk of his life, this American soldier of sublime compassion, brought water to his wounded foes at Fredericksburg. The fighting men on both sides of the line called him ‘The Angel of Marye’s Heights.’” On the back of the pedestal is biographical information about this sergeant who served in the 2nd South Carolina Volunteers.”

    So the point here is that there ARE memorials related to the Civil War and even the Confederacy – in public places – of which as far as I know have never had folks to advocate tearing it down.

    History is not erased. Not a single word of history about Jefferson will ever be expunged and it will be there for anyone who wants to learn about Jefferson. That’s a different thing than a public memorial.

    1. The more memorials the better. If you feel so strongly, why don’t you organize an effort to honor someone you believe is worth honoring? Build up, don’t tear down.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        because I think memorials can be problematic to begin with and we clearly have a history where many memorials were put up that were not supported by all.

        Memorials need to widely supported by many – not just some and confusing or purposely claiming that memorials are “history” is clearly not agreed to either.

        Who would advocated tearing down a memorial to Arthur Ashe or Danny Thomas or similar?

        You say the more memorials the better.

        Really? I can think of some that would be divisive and strongly objected to by some even as others want them. You’d do that?

Leave a Reply