Different immune system genes ? There are studies showing that women can tell the difference between people with a Major Histocompatibility Complex ( MHC ) similar to their own, and someone with an MHC significantly different. Perhaps it’s an extension of that same principle. I haven’t noticed any such difference, being somewhat insensitive to most smells.
As far as the OP goes; first, I consider holding slaves and permitting slavery to be unforgivable. If the South was unwilling to give up it’s slaves, they shouldn’t have been permitted in the Union. As well, I don’t consider the adulation of anyone a good idea.
All excellent points, were it not for the fact the Mr. Jefferson owned slaves himself. That’s the problem. I don’t see why it’s hard to:
Admire Jefferson for the contributions he made to the country, espcially in its founding.
Admire Jefferson for the many other “good” think he may have done.
Disapprove of his attitude towards slavery-- he was unable to see past his own personal interests in the matter.
I am, however, inclined to cut people of his era a bit of slack because there really wasn’t the kind of scientific evidence we have today about the unity of our species. But that’s just a “bit” of slack-- not much. There was still ample evidence for the essential equality of Europeans and Africans for anyone who took the time to look.
Well, I agree with you. But the fact that he owned slaves isn’t as simple as it seems, either. He inherited an estate which was mortgaged–like most plantations–and therefore could not free the slaves which belonged to it. As I said above, freeing slaves was by no means an easy thing to do; the governments had made it extremely difficult, so much so that some owners simply let their slaves live as free people rather than try to do it legally.
It’s quite true that Jefferson could have tried to get his estate out from under the massive debt it carried, and he was no good at that at all. He doesn’t seem to have had the faintest idea how to not spend money, or keep accounts, or anything. As I said above, he was essentially a small prince on his estate–and what prince has ever given up his wealth and comfort voluntarily? Prince Gautama Buddha is the only one I ever heard of, and Jefferson was no Buddha, however much of an idealistic genius he was.
I’m not trying to say that Jefferson didn’t have flaws; he certainly had lots of them, and slavery was obviously a painful and contradictory element of his life. He didn’t have the strength to live up to his ideals. All I want to do is point out that it wasn’t as simple as we like to think.
Another thing mentioned by Paul Johnson: Jefferson obsessively made notes of every penny he spent wherever he went – but he never organized or tallied up his records; he just, in effect, jotted down figures and shoved the notes in a drawer, as if that would serve any purpose.
Somehow or other he managed to free nine of his slaves. But as far as I know, his whole life was spent in debt and his extravagant spending habits only made it worse. His finances never did allow him to free his slaves.
And though I don’t know whether being President would have helped, I’m not sure even a President can circumvent debt laws.
He deserves kudos only if you agree that his antiquated definition of “idea” meshes with your own modern viewpoint that you shouldn’t have to pay for that CD or movie you ripped.
His notion of an “idea” was born of a time when free mechanical and/or digital reproduction of an idea, song, book, or product was impossible.
That is to say, in Jefferson’s time, if you wanted a copy of a painting, you had to pay an artist to paint it; if you wanted a copy of a book, you paid a printer to print it; if you wanted to listen to a song you hired musicians to play it. Or you learned to be a painter, a printer, or a musician and did it yourself.
He didn’t have the first clue what modern technology would do to re-interpret his quote about intellectual property. Nostradamus he ain’t.
He was able to free at least some of Sally Hemming’s children. I don’t see any evidence that Jefferson would have been willing to free his slaves even if he hadn’t been in debt. He was tied to the plantation way of life, and that meant owning slaves.
Well, I agree that he was tied to his way of life. I think he probably changed over time, from an idealistic young crusader to a more jaded, hopeless outlook, and I think he probably avoided thinking about it after a while. IIRC, for a long time he just refused to talk with John Adams about it.
IMO he was broken by living in the system; although he thought it was wrong, he couldn’t get out of it either and wasn’t able or willing to try. I think he stated himself that slavery was bad for both slave and master, and that it corrupted owners. He was living proof of that.
That’s really all I’m trying to say, although I’d add that his statement about corruption (I’ve read that, too) sounds like a rationalization. I find it hard to dredge up any sympathy for how “bad” slavery was for the master.
But at least it helps you understand the situation from the master’s POV. His, and others’. See post #30. Most whites in the antebellum South were much too poor to own slaves and had no serious hope of ever changing that (social mobility being very limited, compared to the North). But they still had an interest in preserving the institution, because they were scared shitless of the prospect of millions of negroes running around loose. That’s one of the ways slavery “corrupts” the free.
I don’t think it’s supposed to be sympathy; obviously the slaves are the ones who are worse off in the transaction. I think the point is that owning slaves so blunts the moral sense, and is so corrupting, that it renders the owners incapable of proper moral judgement even before they are old enough to be able to talk about ending the slavery. Owners were born into the system and rendered incapable of breaking out of it, both financially and morally; you don’t have to feel sorry for them, but I think it’s important to recognize that slavery is bad for everyone involved.
Yes, I understand that. I just think it sounds more like a rationalization than anything else. I don’t accept that it renders the owners “incapable” of making the proper moral judgement or of breaking out of the slavery system-- it just gives them a strong personal incentive not to. Big, big difference.
The bottom line is that Jefferson wasn’t willing to bankrupt himself on principle. (And bankruptcy would surely have been the result if he had freed all his slaves.)
He was willing to work for gradual emancipation of all slaves.
I gather that some posters are unwilling to admire the man for anything he did unless he sacrificed his well-being and that of his family to the cause of emancipation. Are you so certain you would have responded differently if you had been born into the same circumstance?
Definitely. I’d shoot myself before owning a slave ( or better yet, shoot the person who offers me the slave ). If other members of my family owned slaves, they’d get rid of them or I’d disown them all. And if the opportunity came I’d cheerfully kill them all, family or not. As I said, slavery is unforgivable.
Even in the South, most people survived without owning slaves; it’s not some kind of impossibility. Jefferson could have spent some of the money he spent himself into debt with on smuggling his slave North, for example. He certainly could have avoided raping Sally Hemmings.
Well, it wasn’t rape in a legal sense. A slave did not own her own body and had no right to say no if her master wanted sex. And most male slaveowners availed themselves of that privilege, which is why modern “African-Americans” are mostly descended from masters as well as from slaves. I read once – no cite – that Jefferson was unusual only in publicly admitting what was going on.
