Jefferson, Monticello and Slavery

Monticello at sunset

by James A. Bacon

My wife and I had the good fortune to join friends in a “private” tour of Monticello last evening. (Because of COVID, Monticello no longer conducts the traditional tours of 25 or so people per group, so all tours are small and “private.”) It has been a decade or more since I last visited the place, but considerable progress has been made in renovations of the house and grounds. I learned many tidbits about Jefferson that I either never knew or had long forgetten. 

As the movement gains momentum to delegitimize the founding fathers, especially slaveholders, T.J. remains a subject of controversy and debate. Accordingly, I report here some of what I learned that might illuminate aspects of that debate.

Indebtedness. Jefferson began construction on Monticello in 1768 on a plantation of 5,000 acres. His first design for the building was, quite frankly, unremarkable. After visiting France, where he was exposed to both classical architectural styles as well as architectural novelties, he totally redesigned the building and scrapped the work that had been done to that point. The result was an architectural masterpiece — and a significant addition to his debt.

It is difficult for people living in 2020 to conceive how different the economic world was 250 years ago. It is widely known that Jefferson amassed great debts over his lifetime. Less widely known is that he had inherited considerable debts from his father-in-law. No one today inherits the obligation to pay off their parents’ debts today (other unless it is secured by specific assets such as houses and cars). Before the American Revolution, however, the mechanisms for inheritance and intergenerational transfer of wealth were rooted in the feudal era. As a Virginia state legislator between 1776 and 1179, Jefferson worked to abolish feudal vestiges such as the doctrine of entail, which dictated that only a property owner’s heirs could inherent his land, and the doctrine of primogeniture, which required that in the absence of a will, a property owner’s oldest son inherited his entire state.

Most of Jefferson’s indebtedness, however, was due to his own extravagance. He purchased the neighboring mountain to preserve what we now might call his “viewshed.” Always hospitable, he entertained an endless stream of guests at considerable expense. His many years of public service diminished the time he could dedicate to the management of his extensive estate of farms and slaves. And even when he did focus on estate management, ever optimistic, he consistently underestimated expenses and overestimated revenues. After Jefferson’s death, his grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph, shouldered the entire debt load — $107,000, a massive sum in those days — and finally satisfied all creditors 50 years later.

Slaves. Of all of Jefferson’s slaves, the best known is slave Sally Hemings, whom the preponderance of evidence suggests served as his concubine. But two of her brothers reached positions of considerable status within the plantation hierarchy as well.

Sally’s brother James Hemings traveled with Jefferson to France, where he trained as a chef de cuisine. Hemings returned from France, where he was a free man, to continue in Jefferson’s service in Virginia as a slave. Jefferson delegated enormous responsibility to him and gave him great latitude in travel and the handling of money. When Jefferson was away and his services were not needed, Hemings was allowed to hire himself out and keep his wages. In 1796 Jefferson granted Hemings his freedom. They stayed in contact on and off throughout Hemings’ life.

Robert Hemings, brother of Sally and James, served as Jefferson’s  bodyservant and traveled with him everywhere in America. He did not accompany Jefferson to France, however. Instead he found another job as a servant and was allowed to keep his wages for himself. While he enjoyed considerable freedom, Hemings was married to Dolly, a slave woman living near Fredericksburg and Richmond by whom he had two children. After shuttling for years between Monticello and his wife’s residences, he persuaded a Richmond doctor to advance him the purchase price of his freedom, which Hemings agreed to repay with service. Jefferson complied with the agreement, though reluctantly due to the value he placed on Hemings’ service.

Unlike many slave holders, Jefferson encouraged his slaves to learn to read — many received their instruction at Monticello. As a deist affiliated with no religious denomination and a proponent of religious freedom, he granted his slaves freedom of religious conscience, allowing them to worship as they pleased. Whenever he hired white craftsmen and artisans to perform work, he made it a point to require them to train his slaves. When the slaves weren’t working in the wheat fields, they were engaged in small-scale industries such as nail making and textile production as charcoal burners, blacksmiths, house joiners, nail makers, and carpenters. He provided tips and percentages of workshop profits to slaves who maximized efficiency and output.

It in no way condones the institution of slavery to acknowledge that Jefferson, by the standards of his time, was a benign master who endeavored to better the condition of the slaves he owned. True, he manumitted only seven of his slaves, including five at his death, but he was constrained by his massive debts and legal obligations to his debtors. He also endeavored to hold his slave families together, which he largely did until he died. Upon the settlement of his estate, however, nearly everything in Monticello and his plantation was sold off, including 130 slaves, to satisfy creditors. Tragically, many family members were split as they were auctioned off to different bidders.

Slavery was an evil and indefensible institution, as Jefferson himself acknowledged. Looking back from our vantage point today, we rightly condemn that evil. When appraising Jefferson’s role in history, we must acknowledge his participation in an evil institution but also recognize his efforts to rise above it by making the institution less inhumane and articulating the principles of individual liberty that would inspire the movement to abolish slavery altogether.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

64 responses to “Jefferson, Monticello and Slavery”

  1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    Upper Bremo in Fluvanna County might be the best example of palladium architecture in America. Inspired by Jefferson, the Cocke family may have surpassed Monticello with Upper Bremo. Open for tours during garden week.
    https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/pnp/habshaer/va/va0400/va0451/photos/161765pr.jpg

    1. The Bremo Plantation is simply spectacular. I once received a “private” tour of the place. I was allowed to take pictures although I am honor-bound not to copy or publish any of them. The current owners are very private people and garden week is the ONLY time when the public is allowed on the property.

      Gen. John Hartwell Cocke was a protégé of Thomas Jefferson. He designed the [Historic] Fluvanna County Courthouse in Palmyra, Virginia. It is one of only a few (perhaps as few as two) early to 19th century courthouse buildings in Virginia which has never had any exterior additions or major modifications.

      A basement was dug under the building in (I think) the 1980s and a handicap ramp was added to the east side, but other than that it is as it was constructed in 1830. It is worth a visit if you like historic buildings. The Old Stone Jail (1828) in Palmyra is also interesting – it contains a museum which can be visited by appointment.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        Lower Bremo is magnificent place too. Jacobin architecture that reminds me of Bacons Castle. Mr Wayne you were very fortunate to see Bremo. Only a dedicated history man even knows about this place. Remarkable number of outbuildings and even a slave chapel.

      2. Bremo Plantation. A very pastoral setting, aside from that view of the logging company loading yard across the River, or the old power plant with its “ash pond” just down-River.

        1. Bremo Bluff blocks the line of sight to the power plant from most of the property.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      How about Poplar Forest?

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        It is unfinished and unfurnished. After a long drive to see it I was disappointed. Finished that day by heading down to Brookeneal to see Patrick Henry’s Red Hill. Much better place.

  2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Well, Hell. It’s all settled. In 2018, the Foundation said so, and only 30 years after the DNA proof was available and 20 years after testing.

    https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/monticello-affirms-thomas-jefferson-fathered-children-with-sally-hemings/

    Denial– yet another form of white privilege.

    But, the Conservatives are correct. We do not need CRT. Once the laws are written to provide equity, e.g., CRA64, VRA, etc., and the courts enforce them then systemic racism will disappear… in the very next millennium… eventually… given 10 generations or so.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar

    Where did Jefferson get the 5000 acres? Would just any settler in Virginia receive 5000 acres ?

    Where did you get the money to purchase additional “viewsheds”?

    1. Thomas Jefferson was not a “settler” in Virginia. His family had already been well-established in Virginia for three generations when he was born.

      His father, Peter, inherited a lot of land in what is now Powhatan County from HIS father, Capt. Thomas Jefferson, who was born at Osborne in Chesterfield, Virginia . Peter acquired additional property during his lifetime including large acreage along the Rivanna River. When Peter Jefferson died, his land was divided between Thomas and his younger brother Randolph. Thomas inherited the property on the Rivanna River while his brother got the land south of the James.

      Thomas Jefferson’s great-grandfather (also Thomas) was born in the British West Indies in 1656. His father owned a tobacco plantation there established around 1624. “Thomas I” emigrated to Virginia at a young age. He was married to Mary Field in Henrico County sometime around 1677. He died in Charles County sometime around December 1697, leaving substantial holdings to his son.

      1. Sorry, “He died in Charles City County sometime around December 1697, leaving substantial holdings to his son.”

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        Is it safe to say that Jefferson inherited substantial wealth in terms of assets and slaves – as well as “debt”.

        I’m not sure how he inherits 5000 acres from his father if his father had substantial debt?

        Seems like , rightly, he would have gotten what was left over after debts were paid, no?

        And where did he get the money to pay off that debt?

        How did he earn money?

        Was he an entrepreneur?

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Came with the dry cleaner business?

      1. No, the dry cleaning business was inherited by Lamont Jefferson I who was always considered the black sheep of the family…

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    Where did Jefferson get the 5000 acres? Would just any settler in Virginia receive 5000 acres ?

    Where did you get the money to purchase additional “viewsheds”?

    1. Thomas Jefferson was not a “settler” in Virginia. His family had already been well-established in Virginia for three generations when he was born.

      His father, Peter, inherited a lot of land in what is now Powhatan County from HIS father, Capt. Thomas Jefferson, who was born at Osborne in Chesterfield, Virginia . Peter acquired additional property during his lifetime including large acreage along the Rivanna River. When Peter Jefferson died, his land was divided between Thomas and his younger brother Randolph. Thomas inherited the property on the Rivanna River while his brother got the land south of the James.

      Thomas Jefferson’s great-grandfather (also Thomas) was born in the British West Indies in 1656. His father owned a tobacco plantation there established around 1624. “Thomas I” emigrated to Virginia at a young age. He was married to Mary Field in Henrico County sometime around 1677. He died in Charles County sometime around December 1697, leaving substantial holdings to his son.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Is it safe to say that Jefferson inherited substantial wealth in terms of assets and slaves – as well as “debt”.

        I’m not sure how he inherits 5000 acres from his father if his father had substantial debt?

        Seems like , rightly, he would have gotten what was left over after debts were paid, no?

        And where did he get the money to pay off that debt?

        How did he earn money?

        Was he an entrepreneur?

      2. Sorry, “He died in Charles City County sometime around December 1697, leaving substantial holdings to his son.”

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Came with the dry cleaner business?

      1. No, the dry cleaning business was inherited by Lamont Jefferson I who was always considered the black sheep of the family…

  5. Matt Adams Avatar

    Mr. Bacon I’d suggest “Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson” as a read regarding Mr. Jefferson. It talks in lengths about the debt, his affinity for lavishness, Ms. Hemmings and the like.

    I’d love to visit Monticello, however I’ve subjected the wife to enough historical sites over the years (to which I must provided a gift of atonement for haha).

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Andrew Roesell | December 26, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Reply

      Thanks, Reed, but I am but a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants, and by a mother who raised me “not to be a member of the herd” of cattle that she remembered from an old cowboy movie, where the startled bovines head over a cliff, one after another after another, to destruction.

      Sincerely, Andrew

      Reed Fawell 3rd | December 26, 2017 at 7:05 pm | Reply

      Andrew

      One of those of giants on whose shoulders you stand is Martin Luther King, apparently. … A few snippets of Dr. Kings words found there are:

      “From the very beginning there was a philosophy undergirding the Montgomery boycott, the philosophy of nonviolent resistance … nonviolent resistance is not a method of cowardice. It does resist… (but) is nonaggressive physically (and) is strongly aggressive spiritually … the nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding … the aftermath of violence is bitterness. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community… so … the nonviolent resister seeks to attack the evil system rather than individuals who happen to be caught up in the system.

      … The struggle is rather between justice and injustice, … so (the struggle) not only avoids external violence or external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. And so at the center of our movement stood the philosophy of love.

      … God grant that as men and women all over the world struggle against evil systems they will struggle with love in their hearts, with understanding good will … But there are some things within our social order to which I am proud to be maladjusted and to which I call upon you to be maladjusted. I never intend to adjust myself to segregation and discrimination. I never intend to adjust myself to mob rule. I never intend to adjust myself to the tragic effects of the methods of physical violence and to tragic militarism. I call upon you to be maladjusted to such things …”

      The wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King is sorely needed today. Andrew, thank you also for reminding us of that truth back in February of 2016, too.

      Acbar | December 27, 2017 at 12:00 pm | Reply

      We’ve learned a lot this year. One thing learned is that thoughtful people are concerned about causation, whereas reactionaries at both ends of the spectrum care only about results. History has no significance, even relevance, for people who don’t care why we are the way we are, but simply wish (demand) that we be different. We see this in the occasional deliberate choice to erase history — remove the statues, rename the schools — rather than learn from it. We see it in government measures of hiring discrimination — or college admission — that simply disregard the nature of the talent search or the profile of the applicant pools. We see this in the denigration of main stream media for persisting in their concern for factual accuracy, because who cares about accurately representing the past if your sole intent is to eradicate it (and you don’t see any predictive connection between past and future)? Yes, those who ignore history may be doomed to repeat it.

      But another thing learned is that there is ugliness in our history. There are statues that were erected not in heartbroken memory of the generation of young men who died in vain, but in the renewed militance of Jim Crow. There are schools that were named to intimidate, not for leaders we wish our students to emulate, but to remind them to stay in their place. There were good people who were incidentally products of their times; but also there were people whose primary focus was to preserve what even they knew was evil. We’ve learned there is inertia to preserve history today merely to avoid reexamining the past. And there are people who say hateful things to incite a reaction, and even if their right to say those things is important, they have no right to incite others without a consequence for themselves.

      God grant us the wisdom to admit the difference, and to deal with the latter as they deserve.

      Reed Fawell 3rd | December 27, 2017 at 3:46 pm | Reply

      Acbar says:
      “We’ve learned a lot this year. One thing learned is that thoughtful people are concerned about causation, whereas reactionaries at both ends of the spectrum care only about results. History has no significance, even relevance, for people who don’t care why we are the way we are, but simply wish (demand) that we be different. We see this in the occasional deliberate choice to erase history … Yes, those who ignore history may be doomed to repeat it … But another thing learned is that there is ugliness in our history … God grant us the wisdom to admit the difference, and to deal with the latter as they deserve.” End Quote.

      I’ve come to believe that learning important aspects of history in a true and meaningful way, and applying that learning to our world today, is far more difficult, complex, and demanding than I had ever imagined. The task demands all of our powers and their immense efforts. For anyone doing such task well, and thus having an impact that might change reality, will encounter fierce resistance from the present.

      This is why so many great books of history (or art or science) are written in varying degrees of code on so many levels, if only to keep the writers neck, or his work, off the chopping block.

      This is also why so much great history (like art and science) has been intentionally destroyed. Or buried, even if its creator lives to die of natural causes. It is the reason so many are in exile.

      The truth is that the present hates to hear the truth about today, and it hates to hear the truths of history that brought us to where we are today. Truth is the perennial orphan, particularity truth having relevance to today’s world.

      Why?

      Much of the truth is very ugly. Most of the truth is novel, quite strange, mostly unknown. Most truth is very uncomfortable, even under the best of circumstances, and it is very significantly different, far different, often quite the opposite, from what the reader may have thought or believed to be the truth before uncovering the truth. Particularly so as the truth is only as good and deep as the searcher powers to uncover, judge, and appreciate it, a journey during which he or she must overcome many obstacles. Even then, the truth will die unless the searcher finds a way to keep that true alive.

      Take for example the work that Andrew mentions in Bye, Bye, Birdie – Plato’s Book VIII of the Republic. See: Book VIII of _The Republic_ http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html

      This book cost Socrates his life.

      How many died in Rome citing that book as the authority for what was in fact going on in Rome for 500 years after the fall of the Roman Republic? Ask Cicero how many before they chopped off his hands. No, the better question is who cited Book VIII and lived to see the sun rise again.

      The truth that Socrates (through Plato) taught mankind about itself brings to us just as much bitterness today. And it is just as misunderstood today as it was in ancient Rome. Thomas Jefferson despised the book. John Adams “built his Church up its rock.” Disputations over its meanings and conclusions fueled perhaps the most vicious and vitriolic presidential campaign in American history. That between Jefferson and Adams in 1800. During those bitter times, it unfairly damaged and destroyed reputations of fine men up until this very day, and indeed threatened our Federal form of government in its infancy.

      This morning, thanks to Andrew, I read Book VIII front to back for the first time in a decade. I saw it in a wholly different light, given what I have learned in the last decade.

      Why?

      Because like Andrew says, the Book helps to explain much of the ugliness of history and how it is borne along through time on the wings of the dark aspects of human nature, and the systems that men and women build and operate to promote and protect those dark instincts of their human nature.

      There is a great paradox here, one that is the great gift of history. The more the searcher for the truth of history uncovers the more he must confront the ugliness of history. But here to is where the great gift arises. For the more ugliness he or she can confront and work through and appreciate, the more he or she comes to appreciate the good and noble acts of men and women who endure that ugliness with their goodness intact and so often overcome it in ways large and small, and even reverse that dark side of history and human nature.

      And then also comes the second great gift, that is one that Martin Luther King shines his light on – how also the searcher for the truth so often comes to see that the real evil is often built into not only “the systems within human nature, but also the systems that human nature builds and operates to generate so much evil in the world we all must live in and deal with.

      Some people far more than others must deal directly with and confront this dark reality. This is why the good warrior, the good teacher, and the good scholar are so precious to us all. Our Civilization depends on these good people to an inordinate degree, and we, the rest of us, reap the great benefits the bestow on us.

      Andrew Roesell | December 28, 2017 at 8:52 am | Reply

      Dear Reed,

      Thanks for the citation of Adams & Jefferson. The latter I vaguely remembered did not like Plato, but the former I did not know admired him and _The Republic_. Thanks for sharing.

      Sincerely,

      Andrew

      Reed Fawell 3rd | December 28, 2017 at 12:00 pm | Reply

      A more apt description of Jefferson’s view of Plato’s Republic was that it amounted to indecipherable nonsense for the reason that it was the polar opposite of Jefferson’s official version of his views on politics, while in fact Plato’s Republic described quite aptly Jefferson’s oligarchic (aristocratic) lifestyle, including his treatment of slaves.

      As for Adams, his core political beliefs – his fear that the excesses of the oligarchic (aristocratic) class and also of democratic rule could be tempered only by a powerful and long tenured executive grows directly out of Plato’s Republic whether directly or indirectly received. Yet, Adams was ambiguous at best on these obvious origins of his most deeply held political beliefs. This likely grew out of his plain puritan New England lifestyle and upbringing, all in stark contrast to the imperial lifestyle of Jefferson in his actions as distinct from his words.

      Adams, however, late in life in a letter to Jefferson chided Plato in an obsequious effort to curry Jefferson’ favor. The most honest and direct, industrious and fearless and competent of men, Adams nevertheless could on occasion be socially insecure around Jefferson and his ilk. Another human, like us all, including Jefferson.

  6. Matt Adams Avatar

    Mr. Bacon I’d suggest “Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson” as a read regarding Mr. Jefferson. It talks in lengths about the debt, his affinity for lavishness, Ms. Hemmings and the like.

    I’d love to visit Monticello, however I’ve subjected the wife to enough historical sites over the years (to which I must provided a gift of atonement for haha).

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Andrew Roesell | December 26, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Reply

      Thanks, Reed, but I am but a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants, and by a mother who raised me “not to be a member of the herd” of cattle that she remembered from an old cowboy movie, where the startled bovines head over a cliff, one after another after another, to destruction.

      Sincerely, Andrew

      Reed Fawell 3rd | December 26, 2017 at 7:05 pm | Reply

      Andrew

      One of those of giants on whose shoulders you stand is Martin Luther King, apparently. … A few snippets of Dr. Kings words found there are:

      “From the very beginning there was a philosophy undergirding the Montgomery boycott, the philosophy of nonviolent resistance … nonviolent resistance is not a method of cowardice. It does resist… (but) is nonaggressive physically (and) is strongly aggressive spiritually … the nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding … the aftermath of violence is bitterness. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community… so … the nonviolent resister seeks to attack the evil system rather than individuals who happen to be caught up in the system.

      … The struggle is rather between justice and injustice, … so (the struggle) not only avoids external violence or external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. And so at the center of our movement stood the philosophy of love.

      … God grant that as men and women all over the world struggle against evil systems they will struggle with love in their hearts, with understanding good will … But there are some things within our social order to which I am proud to be maladjusted and to which I call upon you to be maladjusted. I never intend to adjust myself to segregation and discrimination. I never intend to adjust myself to mob rule. I never intend to adjust myself to the tragic effects of the methods of physical violence and to tragic militarism. I call upon you to be maladjusted to such things …”

      The wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King is sorely needed today. Andrew, thank you also for reminding us of that truth back in February of 2016, too.

      Acbar | December 27, 2017 at 12:00 pm | Reply

      We’ve learned a lot this year. One thing learned is that thoughtful people are concerned about causation, whereas reactionaries at both ends of the spectrum care only about results. History has no significance, even relevance, for people who don’t care why we are the way we are, but simply wish (demand) that we be different. We see this in the occasional deliberate choice to erase history — remove the statues, rename the schools — rather than learn from it. We see it in government measures of hiring discrimination — or college admission — that simply disregard the nature of the talent search or the profile of the applicant pools. We see this in the denigration of main stream media for persisting in their concern for factual accuracy, because who cares about accurately representing the past if your sole intent is to eradicate it (and you don’t see any predictive connection between past and future)? Yes, those who ignore history may be doomed to repeat it.

      But another thing learned is that there is ugliness in our history. There are statues that were erected not in heartbroken memory of the generation of young men who died in vain, but in the renewed militance of Jim Crow. There are schools that were named to intimidate, not for leaders we wish our students to emulate, but to remind them to stay in their place. There were good people who were incidentally products of their times; but also there were people whose primary focus was to preserve what even they knew was evil. We’ve learned there is inertia to preserve history today merely to avoid reexamining the past. And there are people who say hateful things to incite a reaction, and even if their right to say those things is important, they have no right to incite others without a consequence for themselves.

      God grant us the wisdom to admit the difference, and to deal with the latter as they deserve.

      Reed Fawell 3rd | December 27, 2017 at 3:46 pm | Reply

      Acbar says:
      “We’ve learned a lot this year. One thing learned is that thoughtful people are concerned about causation, whereas reactionaries at both ends of the spectrum care only about results. History has no significance, even relevance, for people who don’t care why we are the way we are, but simply wish (demand) that we be different. We see this in the occasional deliberate choice to erase history … Yes, those who ignore history may be doomed to repeat it … But another thing learned is that there is ugliness in our history … God grant us the wisdom to admit the difference, and to deal with the latter as they deserve.” End Quote.

      I’ve come to believe that learning important aspects of history in a true and meaningful way, and applying that learning to our world today, is far more difficult, complex, and demanding than I had ever imagined. The task demands all of our powers and their immense efforts. For anyone doing such task well, and thus having an impact that might change reality, will encounter fierce resistance from the present.

      This is why so many great books of history (or art or science) are written in varying degrees of code on so many levels, if only to keep the writers neck, or his work, off the chopping block.

      This is also why so much great history (like art and science) has been intentionally destroyed. Or buried, even if its creator lives to die of natural causes. It is the reason so many are in exile.

      The truth is that the present hates to hear the truth about today, and it hates to hear the truths of history that brought us to where we are today. Truth is the perennial orphan, particularity truth having relevance to today’s world.

      Why?

      Much of the truth is very ugly. Most of the truth is novel, quite strange, mostly unknown. Most truth is very uncomfortable, even under the best of circumstances, and it is very significantly different, far different, often quite the opposite, from what the reader may have thought or believed to be the truth before uncovering the truth. Particularly so as the truth is only as good and deep as the searcher powers to uncover, judge, and appreciate it, a journey during which he or she must overcome many obstacles. Even then, the truth will die unless the searcher finds a way to keep that true alive.

      Take for example the work that Andrew mentions in Bye, Bye, Birdie – Plato’s Book VIII of the Republic. See: Book VIII of _The Republic_ http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html

      This book cost Socrates his life.

      How many died in Rome citing that book as the authority for what was in fact going on in Rome for 500 years after the fall of the Roman Republic? Ask Cicero how many before they chopped off his hands. No, the better question is who cited Book VIII and lived to see the sun rise again.

      The truth that Socrates (through Plato) taught mankind about itself brings to us just as much bitterness today. And it is just as misunderstood today as it was in ancient Rome. Thomas Jefferson despised the book. John Adams “built his Church up its rock.” Disputations over its meanings and conclusions fueled perhaps the most vicious and vitriolic presidential campaign in American history. That between Jefferson and Adams in 1800. During those bitter times, it unfairly damaged and destroyed reputations of fine men up until this very day, and indeed threatened our Federal form of government in its infancy.

      This morning, thanks to Andrew, I read Book VIII front to back for the first time in a decade. I saw it in a wholly different light, given what I have learned in the last decade.

      Why?

      Because like Andrew says, the Book helps to explain much of the ugliness of history and how it is borne along through time on the wings of the dark aspects of human nature, and the systems that men and women build and operate to promote and protect those dark instincts of their human nature.

      There is a great paradox here, one that is the great gift of history. The more the searcher for the truth of history uncovers the more he must confront the ugliness of history. But here to is where the great gift arises. For the more ugliness he or she can confront and work through and appreciate, the more he or she comes to appreciate the good and noble acts of men and women who endure that ugliness with their goodness intact and so often overcome it in ways large and small, and even reverse that dark side of history and human nature.

      And then also comes the second great gift, that is one that Martin Luther King shines his light on – how also the searcher for the truth so often comes to see that the real evil is often built into not only “the systems within human nature, but also the systems that human nature builds and operates to generate so much evil in the world we all must live in and deal with.

      Some people far more than others must deal directly with and confront this dark reality. This is why the good warrior, the good teacher, and the good scholar are so precious to us all. Our Civilization depends on these good people to an inordinate degree, and we, the rest of us, reap the great benefits the bestow on us.

      Andrew Roesell | December 28, 2017 at 8:52 am | Reply

      Dear Reed,

      Thanks for the citation of Adams & Jefferson. The latter I vaguely remembered did not like Plato, but the former I did not know admired him and _The Republic_. Thanks for sharing.

      Sincerely,

      Andrew

      Reed Fawell 3rd | December 28, 2017 at 12:00 pm | Reply

      A more apt description of Jefferson’s view of Plato’s Republic was that it amounted to indecipherable nonsense for the reason that it was the polar opposite of Jefferson’s official version of his views on politics, while in fact Plato’s Republic described quite aptly Jefferson’s oligarchic (aristocratic) lifestyle, including his treatment of slaves.

      As for Adams, his core political beliefs – his fear that the excesses of the oligarchic (aristocratic) class and also of democratic rule could be tempered only by a powerful and long tenured executive grows directly out of Plato’s Republic whether directly or indirectly received. Yet, Adams was ambiguous at best on these obvious origins of his most deeply held political beliefs. This likely grew out of his plain puritan New England lifestyle and upbringing, all in stark contrast to the imperial lifestyle of Jefferson in his actions as distinct from his words.

      Adams, however, late in life in a letter to Jefferson chided Plato in an obsequious effort to curry Jefferson’ favor. The most honest and direct, industrious and fearless and competent of men, Adams nevertheless could on occasion be socially insecure around Jefferson and his ilk. Another human, like us all, including Jefferson.

  7. Jesse Richardson Avatar
    Jesse Richardson

    That’s all well and good, but Jefferson’s treatment of Sally Hemmings cannot be considered “humane” in any way, shape or form. A sexual relationship with a slave cannot be considered consensual in any circumstances.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      What you’re using to view Jefferson is presentism. Does that make slavery any less abhorrent, no. However, we cannot judge the past with the views and knowledge of today.

      1. Jesse Richardson Avatar
        Jesse Richardson

        Lots of people are using presentism to rename schools, tear down statues, etc. I tend to agree with you that the use of presentism is overblown today. However, the premise of the article was that, although Jefferson was a slaveowner, he was a swell guy and treated his slaves relatively well. I’m limiting my comment to that context and arguing that one cannot really call Jefferson a swell guy and relatively humane slave owner when he was raping at least one of his slaves, even in the context of 1700’s Virginia. Even then, a “humane” slave owner would not go there, in my opinion. Of course, I need to know what percentage of slave owners raped slaves at that time, and how many consciously declined to do so. I tend to think that some relatively humane slave owners chose not to do so.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          I didn’t gather that from he article at all. Also, given the sheer number of illegitimate children from that time period, I’d say while reprehensible it occurred regularly.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Kinda like sex with an intern, eh? Oh, but that would be presentism.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Oh, and impeachment too! Sex with intern is much more serious that Russian collusion!!

  8. Jesse Richardson Avatar
    Jesse Richardson

    That’s all well and good, but Jefferson’s treatment of Sally Hemmings cannot be considered “humane” in any way, shape or form. A sexual relationship with a slave cannot be considered consensual in any circumstances.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      What you’re using to view Jefferson is presentism. Does that make slavery any less abhorrent, no. However, we cannot judge the past with the views and knowledge of today.

      1. Jesse Richardson Avatar
        Jesse Richardson

        Lots of people are using presentism to rename schools, tear down statues, etc. I tend to agree with you that the use of presentism is overblown today. However, the premise of the article was that, although Jefferson was a slaveowner, he was a swell guy and treated his slaves relatively well. I’m limiting my comment to that context and arguing that one cannot really call Jefferson a swell guy and relatively humane slave owner when he was raping at least one of his slaves, even in the context of 1700’s Virginia. Even then, a “humane” slave owner would not go there, in my opinion. Of course, I need to know what percentage of slave owners raped slaves at that time, and how many consciously declined to do so. I tend to think that some relatively humane slave owners chose not to do so.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          I didn’t gather that from he article at all. Also, given the sheer number of illegitimate children from that time period, I’d say while reprehensible it occurred regularly.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Kinda like sex with an intern, eh? Oh, but that would be presentism.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Oh, and impeachment too! Sex with intern is much more serious that Russian collusion!!

  9. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    With raised fists, Jesse in his Superman suit, says of one of most influential men in human history:

    “However, the premise of the article was that, although Jefferson was a slaveowner, he was a swell guy and treated his slaves relatively well. I’m limiting my comment to that context and arguing that one cannot really call Jefferson a swell guy and relatively humane slave owner when he was raping at least one of his slaves, even in the context of 1700’s Virginia.”

    That’s a mighty mouthful of hot air. Even for Superman.

  10. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    With raised fists, Jesse in his Superman suit, says of one of most influential men in human history:

    “However, the premise of the article was that, although Jefferson was a slaveowner, he was a swell guy and treated his slaves relatively well. I’m limiting my comment to that context and arguing that one cannot really call Jefferson a swell guy and relatively humane slave owner when he was raping at least one of his slaves, even in the context of 1700’s Virginia.”

    That’s a mighty mouthful of hot air. Even for Superman.

  11. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: “presentism”

    I find it hard to believe that someone inherits 5000 acres and other assets including slaves, then purchases more land, to say he also inherited debt and therefore he was burdened with debt.

    It sounds like modern day folks who owe money and then go out and buy more stuff on credit.

    Jefferson WAS a Founding Father but he was also a guy – and had flaws and for some reason, some of us have a great deal of trouble admitting both sides of him.

    There are no “heroes” – only in our own minds when we choose to view them myopically.

  12. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: “presentism”

    I find it hard to believe that someone inherits 5000 acres and other assets including slaves, then purchases more land, to say he also inherited debt and therefore he was burdened with debt.

    It sounds like modern day folks who owe money and then go out and buy more stuff on credit.

    Jefferson WAS a Founding Father but he was also a guy – and had flaws and for some reason, some of us have a great deal of trouble admitting both sides of him.

    There are no “heroes” – only in our own minds when we choose to view them myopically.

  13. The term “rape” has a wide range of meanings. On one end of the spectrum it could refer to a what happened to a family member of mine: Awakened by a knock on the window by her bed in the middle of the night, she drew aside the curtain and found a man pointing a gun at her. He forced his way into the apartment and raped her.

    On the other extreme, rape can refer to a regrettable sexual encounter in which both the man and women were too drunk to know what they were doing, and the woman later decided she was too drunk to have given consent, and, thus, she had been raped.

    We simply do not know what level of coercion Jefferson might have applied to get Hemings to sleep with him. Clearly, he enjoined a position of power over her. We can speculate all we want, but we do not know what happened. I would argue from the longevity of the relationship that there was an emotional basis to the relationship, and that the affection was reciprocal. But again we don’t know.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      We don’t know because Jefferson chose to not tell of his relationship to Hemmings. Had he done that, none of the denial that happened afterwrds would have happened.

      He made that choice.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Hey. It only took 20 years AFTER the DNA proved it that it was declared “settled”. That’s QUICK in the terms of American racial equity.

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead V

      Part of Jefferson’s Sphinx like qualities, he only let you in on what he wanted you to know.

  14. The term “rape” has a wide range of meanings. On one end of the spectrum it could refer to a what happened to a family member of mine: Awakened by a knock on the window by her bed in the middle of the night, she drew aside the curtain and found a man pointing a gun at her. He forced his way into the apartment and raped her.

    On the other extreme, rape can refer to a regrettable sexual encounter in which both the man and women were too drunk to know what they were doing, and the woman later decided she was too drunk to have given consent, and, thus, she had been raped.

    We simply do not know what level of coercion Jefferson might have applied to get Hemings to sleep with him. Clearly, he enjoined a position of power over her. We can speculate all we want, but we do not know what happened. I would argue from the longevity of the relationship that there was an emotional basis to the relationship, and that the affection was reciprocal. But again we don’t know.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      We don’t know because Jefferson chose to not tell of his relationship to Hemmings. Had he done that, none of the denial that happened afterwrds would have happened.

      He made that choice.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Hey. It only took 20 years AFTER the DNA proved it that it was declared “settled”. That’s QUICK in the terms of American racial equity.

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead V

      Part of Jefferson’s Sphinx like qualities, he only let you in on what he wanted you to know.

  15. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    Upper Bremo in Fluvanna County might be the best example of palladium architecture in America. Inspired by Jefferson, the Cocke family may have surpassed Monticello with Upper Bremo. Open for tours during garden week.
    https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/pnp/habshaer/va/va0400/va0451/photos/161765pr.jpg

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      How about Poplar Forest?

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        It is unfinished and unfurnished. After a long drive to see it I was disappointed. Finished that day by heading down to Brookeneal to see Patrick Henry’s Red Hill. Much better place.

    2. The Bremo Plantation is simply spectacular. I once received a “private” tour of the place. I was allowed to take pictures although I am honor-bound not to copy or publish any of them. The current owners are very private people and garden week is the ONLY time when the public is allowed on the property.

      Gen. John Hartwell Cocke was a protégé of Thomas Jefferson. He designed the [Historic] Fluvanna County Courthouse in Palmyra, Virginia. It is one of only a few (perhaps as few as two) early to 19th century courthouse buildings in Virginia which has never had any exterior additions or major modifications.

      A basement was dug under the building in (I think) the 1980s and a handicap ramp was added to the east side, but other than that it is as it was constructed in 1830. It is worth a visit if you like historic buildings. The Old Stone Jail (1828) in Palmyra is also interesting – it contains a museum which can be visited by appointment.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        Lower Bremo is magnificent place too. Jacobin architecture that reminds me of Bacons Castle. Mr Wayne you were very fortunate to see Bremo. Only a dedicated history man even knows about this place. Remarkable number of outbuildings and even a slave chapel.

      2. Bremo Plantation. A very pastoral setting, aside from that view of the logging company loading yard across the River, or the old power plant with its “ash pond” just down-River.

        1. Bremo Bluff blocks the line of sight to the power plant from most of the property.

  16. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Well, Hell. It’s all settled. In 2018, the Foundation said so, and only 30 years after the DNA proof was available and 20 years after testing.

    https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/monticello-affirms-thomas-jefferson-fathered-children-with-sally-hemings/

    Denial– yet another form of white privilege.

    But, the Conservatives are correct. We do not need CRT. Once the laws are written to provide equity, e.g., CRA64, VRA, etc., and the courts enforce them then systemic racism will disappear… in the very next millennium… eventually… given 10 generations or so.

  17. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: criticising Jefferson.

    Well no. The real point is to recognize that the Founding Fathers were ALSO ordinary men with flaws who ALSO had vision and “more”.

    Holdling them on pedestals is really a disservice to them and to us.

    Great Men and Women are also ordinary Men and Women who did great things during their lives but not 24/7.

    Recognizing them for their flaws and humanity is not disparing them.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      “There are no extraordinary men; just ordinary men in extraordinary situations.” — Nimitz, I believe.

  18. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: criticising Jefferson.

    Well no. The real point is to recognize that the Founding Fathers were ALSO ordinary men with flaws who ALSO had vision and “more”.

    Holdling them on pedestals is really a disservice to them and to us.

    Great Men and Women are also ordinary Men and Women who did great things during their lives but not 24/7.

    Recognizing them for their flaws and humanity is not disparing them.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      “There are no extraordinary men; just ordinary men in extraordinary situations.” — Nimitz, I believe.

  19. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    It is also the case that Jefferson was one of the first statesmen to take action to end slavery. He introduced a Virginia law prohibiting importingenslaved Africans and proposed a ban on slavery in the Northwest Territory, new lands ceded by the British. In Notes on the State of Virginia, published in 1785, he proposed a plan of gradual emancipation. And, in an early version of the Declaration, he drafted a passage that condemned slavery. Unfortunately, after his effort with a Virginia law failed, he fell silent.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Jefferson condemned slavery morally but also defended it as necessary to operate large farms. He also supported returning slaves to Africa, Colonization of Liberia – as opposed to setting them free to become nattural-born Americans. Not sure he ever saw slaves as free Americans which would have set him apart from most of society that also did not see Slaves as legitimate Americans.

      That attitude ultimately led, IMHO, to future laws and white societal treatment that actually did treat emancipated slaves as second class citizens , Jim Crow, and decades of systemic racism such as separate pubic facilities including schools, denial of full voting rights, etc.

      We need to acknowledge ALL of Jeffersons life and not just pick out parts of it that would portray him differently than he actually was.

      We know MUCH about Jefferson. Do we know who actually fought FOR the rights of blacks to become truly equal in Virginia and/or hold them also in high esteem?

  20. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    It is also the case that Jefferson was one of the first statesmen to take action to end slavery. He introduced a Virginia law prohibiting importingenslaved Africans and proposed a ban on slavery in the Northwest Territory, new lands ceded by the British. In Notes on the State of Virginia, published in 1785, he proposed a plan of gradual emancipation. And, in an early version of the Declaration, he drafted a passage that condemned slavery. Unfortunately, after his effort with a Virginia law failed, he fell silent.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Jefferson condemned slavery morally but also defended it as necessary to operate large farms. He also supported returning slaves to Africa, Colonization of Liberia – as opposed to setting them free to become nattural-born Americans. Not sure he ever saw slaves as free Americans which would have set him apart from most of society that also did not see Slaves as legitimate Americans.

      That attitude ultimately led, IMHO, to future laws and white societal treatment that actually did treat emancipated slaves as second class citizens , Jim Crow, and decades of systemic racism such as separate pubic facilities including schools, denial of full voting rights, etc.

      We need to acknowledge ALL of Jeffersons life and not just pick out parts of it that would portray him differently than he actually was.

      We know MUCH about Jefferson. Do we know who actually fought FOR the rights of blacks to become truly equal in Virginia and/or hold them also in high esteem?

Leave a Reply