3. Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson
R. B. Bernstein
American Sphinx
Joseph J. Ellis

Again I find myself a few months behind with my post. I guess that's how blogs tend to work, at least for those of us who are still ashamed of using them. So the specifics are less fresh in my mind, but maybe this will reveal what really stuck with me from my readings on Jefferson.

The first book I read was a short overview of Jefferson, and I found it something of a tease - a parade of dates and names without much insight into the feel and character of the time, or the man. So I found Ellis' book (the same author as His Excellency: George Washington, which I'd read earlier.) It's explicitly focused on his character, and not meant to be an exhaustive accounting of the events of his life.

One big question, of course, is how do we judge Jefferson's ownership of slaves? This question is asked about Washington, too, but it always seems more potent with Jefferson, because of his now scientifically-established sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings. (Obviously slave owners' rape and abuse of their slaves was not new with Jefferson - but the general understanding is that he and Hemmings had some sort of long term, love relationship.)

There's the 'everybody else was doing it, so cut him some slack' argument, and the 'the man who wrote "all men are created equal" so famously in the Declaration of Independence ought to be held to a higher standard before being held up as an American demigod' argument.
I tend toward the second one, but after having contextualized the beginning of our country a bit in this project, I've gained some appreciation for the radical (if not just) nature of the ideas of the privileged men who created our founding documents and practices.

I think hero worship can only lead to bad places. What I appreciate about this project is how it is humanizing the 'big names' of history for me. (I just read tonight that James Madison was 5'4" and 100 lbs. Not much of a historical heavyweight.) And in the process I'm finding grace for some of them.

The interesting thing is, each of the 'founding fathers' had some great ideas and some ridiculous ones. Jefferson can arguably be called the inventor, or at least author, of religious freedom in the United States - something we take for granted today, or worse, a concept some Christians seem happy to sacrifice in the name of evangelism. What Jefferson articulated, and what I appreciate about it, is that we are free to choose: God or no God. Presbyterian or Anglican. Orthodox or heretic. And that the government should have no role whatsoever in choosing for us.

He also had an inexplicable sense, like many of his contemporaries, that the native inhabitants of the western lands of the continent (like their counterparts in the east, who'd already been decimated or bought) were nothing more than a naive savage race in need of civilizing. Jefferson had an odd way of appreciating a people group while simultaneously dehumanizing them and negating their inherent value, apart from their relationship to him.

Which brings us back to slavery. Should we hold people accountable for their unjust actions, even if it was the standard practice at that point in history? Absolutely. Because the fact is, slavery has come and gone throughout history - and it will come again. (I read recently about undocumented Latin American workers being locked inside railroad cars and working for no pay on factory farms in Florida.) Europe, even in Jefferson's time, had largely outlawed slavery, although many Europeans were happy to continue profiting from the North American slave trade.

A thread running through the political rhetoric of the period (some stirring and inspiring, some just embarrassing) is a lack of clarity and a fear about what would happen if the issue of slavery was actually debated and discussed honestly. Everyone in power knew it was morally reprehensible. They just couldn't see how to stop it without hurting their economy or their political unity, and by extension their way of life.

So here's the modern parallel, and I don't think it's too big a stretch to draw it:

Global climate change is a moral issue. The lifestyle of a relative few of us is dramatically changing the planet for all of us. The fear of damaging our economy has prevented our current president from acknowledging the issue in any substantive manner. (Whether addressing climate change in a serious way would actually hurt, and not actually help our economy is by no means a given.)

Is it wrong for me to want a president who is human, who I can expect will make mistakes, but will actually admit that they are not infallible? And who will then turn around and go the right direction? Why is that so far fetched?

I think people who prefer a projection of 'strength' over honesty are helping our country along the road to ruin.