Regarding Jefferson's moral character.

As a slaveowner, Jefferson recognized that one of the greatest hardships of
slavery was the insecurity of family life for his slaves.  Thus, Jefferson
did his best to keep families together, rarely breaking families apart,
unless it was at the desire of the slave.  As a practical matter, Jefferson
acknowledged the integrity of slave families, and the deep desires of his
slaves for those family bonds to be respected.

However, by living a very comfortable life, indulging himself in building
and rebuilding Monticello, surrounding himself with books and fine wine,
entertaining lavishly, and otherwise living well beyond his means,
Jefferson impoverished his estate and ensured that it would have to be sold
in order to pay his debts.  As a consequence, Jefferson's white family lost
their home, as of course did his larger black "family."

The question of whether or not his black "family" contained members who
were directly descended from Jefferson himself is moot to the moral
argument I am making here.  Much more striking, to my mind anyway, is that
Jefferson's massive debt mandated the separation of large numbers of slave
families.  Consider the case of Joseph Fossett, a black blacksmith, who
watched his wife, two sons, and two daughters be sold to three different
bidders to cover the debts of Jefferson's estate.  As Lucia Stanton, who
tells the story beautifully, writes, "the plantation 'family' that
Jefferson had nurtured and controlled for sixty years was no more.  In the
end, he had abandoned his 'children.'"

Surely we can agree that a man who abandons people he acknowledges as his
personal responsibility, and whom he calls his "family," to such an ugly
fate, is someone who has committed an act of moral weakness?  I agree that
Jefferson assumed his debt one small step at a time, at each step tempted
by the physical and intellectual pleasures that participation in a
cosmopolitan and worldy elite society afforded him.  I don't think it is
too far off base to say that Jefferson's temptations were banal in much the
same fashion as those Hannah Arendt describes when she talks about the
"banality of evil."  I agree too that Monticello today is a manificent and
wonderful place, and speaks to some of the very best of the values and
accomplishments of that society.  But when I visit there, I find it hard
not to conclude that it is also the product of a man of deeply flawed
character--and not just flawed by our standards, but also by his own.

Actions have consequences.  Jefferson acted for a very long time, and some
of his actions are highly admirable, both politically and intellectually
and aesthetically.  But I can't forget that even by the paternalistic ethic
of the enlightened slave owner, Jefferson's actions were also
horrible--they had awful consequences for people under his care.  His
accomplishments and his failures strike me as intimately entwined.

Am I really so wrong to call a man who permits such consequences "weak?"

My best,
Kevin

--On Friday, March 29, 2002 5:40 PM +0000 Janet Hunter <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Kevin and everyone,
>
> Last year about this time, with the release April 12, 2001 of the
> Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commison Report
> (http://www.geocities.com/tjshcommission), etc., we had an extended
> discussion of this issue, as you may recall if you were on the list.
>
> I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but the suggestion of
> some to explain why Jefferson's seeming moral position on slavery
> collided with his personal behaviour, might be traced to the fact that
> his personal habits put new meaning to the phrase "last of the big-time
> spenders".   The man appears to have been in hock up to his ears, and his
> slaves were an important part of his "moveable assets".  He simply
> couldn't afford to free them.
>
> Whether or not he was aware that this was the fix/dilemma he was getting
> himself into when he made his original comments is unknown.   He, of
> course, DID have a choice.  He could have done the unthinkable and sold
> Monticello, its contents, etc., etc. instead of keeping his slaves to be
> sold when he died and the wolves appeared at the door.
>
> If this is what you meant by "weak", then you are correct.  The man liked
> fine expensive "things", books, collectibles, etc.  He was human, but he I
> believe he HAD to have realized what he was doing in terms of financial
> irresponsibility would impact whatever his feelings were about  slavery.
> Maybe he was waiting for that $1 million book deal?  $5,000 per speaking
> engagement?  <smile>
>
> My best regards,
>
> Janet (Baugh) Hunter
>
> 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