Comments on: Jefferson and Thurmond

By: R. Ashton

R. Ashton — Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:07:27 +0000

You repeat the claim that Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemings and fathered a child with her as if it were a fact. The truth is that some scientists examined the DNA and said that one of the 6 males in the Jefferson household at the time fathered Heming’s child. That means that, statistically, there is a 83.3% chance that a Jefferson OTHER THAN THOMAS JEFFERSON fathered the child in question. So, with the evidence we now have, no court on Earth would even order Thomas Jefferson to pay child support. There is no preponderance of evidence to support the claim. (Yes, I am aware that no child support enforcement or DNA existed 200 years ago. I am taking artistic license to make a point.) By the way, I would like to see an independent review of even this conclusion. How do they know that a Jefferson from 20 years after Thomas Jefferson’s death did not father a child with a Hemings woman, other than Sally Hemings? The whole thing seems political to me, they want to bash Jefferson in order to denigrate America because Jefferson was and is a great American hero. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he included a condemnation of King George’s approval of the slave trade. The other delegates voted to delete this passage. As president in 1808, Jefferson succeeded in stopping the importation of any more slaves into America. Yes, slavery continued to exist, but he took this step toward ending it, which was the most the people would accept at the time.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:57:51 +0000

“What counts as a flaw, anyway? For instance, do we count drug use as a flaw? How about gambling or consensual adultery?” I have no interest in presenting any attempt at universal rules. I’m hold that back for the time I start my own religion and Rake It In. Players are invited to use their own definitions. Be prepared to defend them, I suppose. Churchill, for instance, I’d say is easily definable as a “great man,” yet was rife with racism, an excess of confidence in the wholly beneficial nature of English colonialism, a contempt history finds questionable in regard to certain individuals, such as characterizing Gandhi (please, not ever “Ghandi”) as a “fakir,” and while he spewed out a jillion military ideas, some of which were quite brilliant, many of them were more or less as disasterous as many of Hitler’s. (Whether Gallipoli was inherently doomed, or failed due to spectacularly bad execution is open to debate, I suppose.) Teddy Roosevelt accomplished great things in facing down American robber barons, breaking up trusts, creating a sweeping system of National Parks in America, creating the modern concept of “conservation” of natural resources and beauty, fighting corruption, and simply being a powerhouse of charisma. Of course, his idea of conservation included shooting about one gazillion wild animals. He also had a powerful belief in the inherent wonderfulnes of war as something necessary for great cultures and individuals, and orated at length on these themes. On the other hand, not a single American soldier died during his terms as President, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize for settling the Russo-Japanese War. He was the champion of American imperialism, and the wars in the Phillipines led to the slaughter of tens or more thousands of Phillipinos. But he was also a great writer, and founder of the American Museum of Natural History. And so on and so forth.

By: Mikhel

Mikhel — Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:50:50 +0000

Gary— What counts as a flaw, anyway? For instance, do we count drug use as a flaw? How about gambling or consensual adultery?

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:00:13 +0000

The difference between Jefferson and Thurmond is simple: Jefferson was a man who couldn’t live up to his own ideals. Except as a friend of segregation, Thurmond never had any ideals to begin with.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:59:58 +0000

The difference between Jefferson and Thurmond is simple: Jefferson was a man who couldn’t live up to his own ideals. Except as a friend of segregation, Thurmond never had any ideals to begin with.

By: drapetomaniac

drapetomaniac — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:11:18 +0000

If there are universal moral truths, then the current values of Western society may not have the right ones. Therefore there is a danger in assuming the current values to be correct. Nah, you’ve got it wrong. Universal Values against Sun People, and Fears of Presentism against Ice People, delicately embroidered with tremulous “do I contradict myself, well then I contradict myself.” I first noticed this marvelous couplet of standards while reading Dinesh D’Souza’s End of Racism, iirc Thomas Jefferson was also the case where he fainted from fear with presentism. But I must say my most favorite cases came around about L’affaire Trent Lott. so I don’t see how it’s even about the issue of human beings with inalienable rights. I agree entirely. I was responding with discreet sarcasm to jpm’s post where he posed what he seemed to think was a paradox.

By: Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:10:11 +0000

Drapetomaniac asks “Is there any evidence that being counted as 3/5ths human at all advanced the claim that slaves are human beings endowed with alienable rights?” The southern slaveowners wanted to count their slaves as full humans for the sake of getting more votes-by-proxy for the slaveholders. The northerners rightly objected that this gave the slaveholders too much power. The right reason for this is that slaveholders didn’t necessarily act in the best interests of those whose proxy vote they possessed. I’m not sure what the historical argument was. So they settled on a compromise. In neither case was it discussing the essential personhood of a slave, and in neither case did it involve really giving a vote to slaves, so I don’t see how it’s even about the issue of human beings with inalienable rights.

By: Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:07:48 +0000

I see no tension at all between what’s been called here “universal values” and worrying about what’s been called here “presentism”. If there are universal moral truths, then the current values of Western society may not have the right ones. Therefore there is a danger in assuming the current values to be correct.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:05:03 +0000

“People who have great flaws are not great people.” We’d not previously established any definition of what constitutes a “great person.” So you are certainly free to assert that, whether as a tautology, or by any other definition you care to submit. I’ll take the position of disagreeing, lazily, by asserting my original statement as an axiom, and agreeing with Rea that your definition would seem to leave very few examples of “great people” on the ground. Any that could be found must be, as well as terribly admirable, terribly boring. Can anyone nominate any great people with no significant flaws? Note: from documented history only, not fiction or mythology or religious hagiography (even Moses, Jesus, and Buddha, have some rather significant failings at times, in my readings, anyway). I’ve always found that the most interesting characters in history are those who have done great things, or thought great thoughts, but were full of odd contradictions and failings, myself. Churchill. Both Roosevelts. Lincoln. Endless list, really. Pointing out and considering their contradictions can be fascinating, no? Incidentally, Ophelia, I first ran across you on this blog, but, in the way of things, immediately started serendipitiously finding stuff by you elsewhere, as well deliberately finding your website, deliberately blogrolling it, and rapidly became a Great Admirer (though I’m flawed, flawed, deeply flawed).

By: Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:04:32 +0000

I had never before heard that Thomas Jefferson’s wife and his supposed mistress were half-sisters. If that’s so, then the DNA in common with his descendants and hers could be totally explained by the fact that they’re all descended from Jefferson’s father-in-law. Is that right, or did I miss something?

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:02:18 +0000

>>Interesting, too, what I've recently read in The >>Counsins? Wars: while Ohio and Indiana were >>free states, they also had statuts banning >>blacks residence (or was it entry?) in their >>territory. >You say this as if this is somehow contradictory. >This is completely misrepresenting the opinion of >most opponents of slavery in the 19th century. >The majority (including President Lincoln) were >not egalitarians who believed that blacks and >whites should be equal; Actually, that's what I wanted to bring out. The dichotomy: Northern views on race=good; Southern views on race=bad is entirely too common. It's too easy to skip from opposition to slavery to presuming 21st century views on race for 19th people. Pointing out exclusionary laws in the north is one way to keep a more nuanced view in sight.

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:54:43 +0000

All said and done, what do you call a species that wields a whip and flogs another human being? An officer in the British Navy, perhaps?

By: clew

clew — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:28:42 +0000

What did the founding fathers write about precedents for freeing slaves in ancient Rome? It seems to me that some of them at least would have seen both the moral and the practical precedent – and recognized the practicality of a relatively comfortable approximation to virtue.

By: SME in Seattle

SME in Seattle — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:11:38 +0000

I had the privilege of attending an Aurora forum at Stanford last Monday featuring two scholars who represented Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The culminating thought on Jefferson suggested ultimately he was a racist and we may never be able to reconcile the written words he so eloquently expressed with his actions that denied his conviction to those words.

By: jpm

jpm — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:41:29 +0000

“Is there any evidence that being counted as 3/5ths human at all advanced the claim that slaves are human beings endowed with alienable rights?” I went back and reviewed some of Madison’s notes from the Convention. I guess what sticks in my mind most are some of the comments made by MORRIS. E.g., “Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included?” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/808.htm