My opinion of Jefferson has changed dramatically since I started this reading project.
I have read a lot of Jefferson's work, and read a lot about him. But one of the big questions about his character goes something like this: "How is it that the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence had slaves?" I've often encountered that question, but the Alexander Hamilton biography made me go much deeper than that.
Here's why.
Economic hypocrisy
In order to create the US, the evil of slavery had to be overlooked. It was swept under the rug and as far as politics went, it could not be discussed.
So when Hamilton became his economic programs (interest, lending, a deficit, and a centralized bank to name a few policies he advanced) and Jefferson tarred Hamilton as the champion of an evil system, Hamilton couldn't turn around and say, "You, the slave-owning plantation owner, is calling my system evil? Look in the mirror."
The comparison couldn't be made, because no one could call out Jefferson for the hypocrisy of that kind of statement without essentially risking the union.
Personal Debt
I learned in the Adam biography what a spendthrift Jefferson was. He lived way over his means.
Not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things–we all have our faults. Except that he was a slave-owning plantation owner. What ended up happening is that even though Jefferson professed that he wanted to sell or free his slaves, he couldn't afford to, because he was trapped in a debt cycle caused by his extravagant living.
While Washington had a sound business mind, and was able to release his slaves in his will, Jefferson could never do such a thing because of his own horrible spending habits. What seems like a character foible takes on a much greater dimension to his character when you think of the slaves back home whose freedom that spending is prevent.
Election
For all of his faults, Jefferson was a pretty great President. But it is interesting to note that without the constitutional 3/5 compromise that apportioned electoral votes to slaves without actually giving them the vote, Jefferson would have lost the election of 1800 to John Adams.
Alexander Hamilton author Ron Chernow frames it like this:
Slaveholding presidents from the south occupied the presidency for approximately fifty of the seventy-two years following Washington's first inauguration. Many of these slaveholding populists were celebrated by posterity as tribunes of the common people. Meanwhile, the self-made Hamilton, a fervent abolitionist and a staunch believer in meritocracy, was villainized in American history textbooks as an apologist of privilege and wealth.
I think that pretty much nails the problem on the head.
The stain of slavery is a phrase I've heard before, but these three examples put that into pretty stark light on what it actually means.
I’ve portrayed Thomas Jefferson professionally for over 20 years to convention audiences from Maine to Hawaii. I know Thomas Jefferson.
I won’t change your opinion, but you’ve chosen only those “facts” that support your premise. I could gut these three examples, but doing so would be a waste of time. I’ll leave it at this: There is a more compelling argument on the other side of each.
As I said, I’ve read a lot about Jefferson. I admire him greatly as a President and author of the Declaration of Independence.
But he does have some real flaws. He was a duplicitous Secretary of State under Washington and actively worked against both him and later against Adams as his Vice President.
As to the specific examples above, please do gut them. I am reading biographies of all the Presidents. I understand that there are many sides to each of their characters and presidencies. I’d be interested to hear the arguments against these.
Gutting won’t accomplish anything other than what I’ve already stated, wasting time. I leave it at this, if you draw any Jefferson information from Hamilton partisans, whom I haven’t read, or from John Adams, which I have read, you will get a skewed perspective.