Mr. Dixon--
While I am bemused that you would think I need defense counsel, I think
your question below does have a reasonably evident answer.
I have been contending all along that the question of the paternity of
Heming's children is a distraction from the larger moral issue. So I am
curious why you keep injecting it into the conversation--its not the crux
of any argument I am advancing. For the argument I want to make it is
irrelevant. It does not matter.
The larger moral issue has, it seems to me, several dimensions. But you
seem to wish to defend Jefferson's personal conduct, and you have not
responded to any of the various reasons I have adduced for concluding that
he was morally weak, and moreover, that he was morally weak in an
instructive way that is useful for us to study and discuss in the present.
I have been suggesting that Jefferson's behavior is very understandable and
indeed very human, but that we have to take him down off of his pedestal in
order to appreciate that. And once we do, we find that Jefferson's own
life provides a tale that confirms the analyses both of his good friend
Madison, but also of his ardent foe Alexander Hamilton. Human nature is
weak, people are susceptible to the allure of luxury and power, power and
luxury corrupt and lead to moral blindness and inability to perceive the
public good, and our public life must be structured with such altogether
human and understandable weakness firmly in mind.
Since Jefferson's affair, real or imagined, with Hemings, is unnecessary
for the argument I am making, I am more than willing, for the purposes of
this discussion, to concede your point. There, you've won :) Now let's
talk about the stuff that really matters.
Slavery, it seems to me, is right at the heart of Jefferson's weakness.
And moreover, for the various reasons that Roger Wilkens discusses,
Jefferson could not have been Jefferson without slavery. And, for the
reasons that Orlando Patterson (among many others) discusses, American
freedom could not have been American freedom without American slavery. Now
*those* are interesting claims, it seems to me, and worthy of our
discussion. If you will review the comments of Paul Rahe and Lance Banning
in the Scholar's Report, I think you will find that they both agree.
I rather suspect that this was what Professor Fordyce was referring to,
although I will leave it to him, of course, to confirm that :)
Best,
Kevin
> Aside from that, I am not sure what point Professor Hardwick intended to
> make that spurred you to become his defense counsel.
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Richard E. Dixon
> Attorney at Law
> 4122 Leonard Drive
> Fairfax, VA 22030
> 703-691-0770
> fax 703-691-0978
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
--
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of History, MSC 2001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg VA 22807
Phone: 540/568-6306
Email: [log in to unmask]
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
