Surely "criminality" depends on what we take "law" to be.
Jefferson, to my reading, is one of the folk who embedded
natural law into the American political and constitutional
lexicon.  It may well be, of course, that Jefferson cannot
bear the moral weight that subsequent American statesmen have
asked him to bear--Abraham Lincolm, for example, or Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, to name two rather important Americans who
took Jefferson's Declaration of Independence as their point of
reference for the foundational values of America.  But the
Lockean natural rights which Jefferson invoked in the
Declaration have pretty clearly resonated powerfully
throughout our country's history.

The political tradition of the United States, it seems to me,
is quintessentially a liberal tradition.  That is to say, it
is a tradition committed to expanding human liberty, by and
large.  Jefferson, as much as any other, is responsible for
articulating American liberalism, in ways that have resonated
powerfully ever since.

The only way to square a commitment liberalism--by which I
mean here a commitment to human liberty, autonomy, and
self-determination--with slavery is to deny the capacity for
self-determination of the slave.  By Locke's reasoning, only
those people capable of exercising adult rational faculties
can participate in the exercise of the sovereignty of the
people.  Thus, one really important way to reconcile slavery
with liberalism is to insist that the slaves cannot exercise
adult rational faculties, and hence must remain dependent on
those who can.  Whether or not racism has its origins in
slavery or predated it, the southern effort to defend both
slavery and a liberal society premised on popular sovereignty,
both at the same time, certainly gave added strength to
racism.  Paul Finkelmen had done a fine job editing some of
the more important of the southern 19th century pro-slavery
arguments, and I would refer readers to his volume in the
Bedford document series.  Read it for yourself; draw your own
conclusions.

Jefferson was partially down that road in the 1780s, when he
worked out his anaylsis of slavery in his NOTES ON THE STATE
OF VIRGINIA.  But to my reading, on balance he ultimately
rejects the argument I limn above.  Jefferson understood
slavery to violate natural law, and in that sense to be
criminal.  I don't think it is an inappropriate word to use in
this context, when we are discussing this particular statesman.

My best,
Kevin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:53:22 -0500
>From: Joan Brooks <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: TJ et al
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>" If we agree that slavery is criminal and evil, Jefferson
was as thoroughly implicated in it as it is possible to be. "
>
>If "criminal" means breaking the law, then no one in 18th C.
Va. was "criminal" by having slaves.  Slavery was protected by
the Constitution until after the Civil War.  It is not
uncommon for moral conscience and legal rights to be in conflict.
>
>What I would find more interesting is a discussion of what
would have happened in our part of N. America if the
compromise on slavery had not been included in the
Constitution.  I remember reading an article in Smithsonian
many years ago on that topic.  It was fascinating.
>
>What folks need to remember is that a compromise is a
workable solution that satisfies no one.
>
>And to Mr. F.:
>As to distant black relatives for 99% of us long-time
Virginians-- So what?  I cannot change my ancestors  (or their
behavior) and would not want to.  I am a genuine American
hybrid and enjoy the search for my varied forebears.
>
>Joan Logan Brooks
>
>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.
Department of History
James Madison University

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html