A month ago, I wrote an article about the veneration of Thomas Jefferson present in our University community. In this piece, I argued that individuals should not venerate Jefferson on account of the fact that he was a racist and slaveowner. Unsurprisingly, the essay garnered opposition that defended the praise Jefferson often receives. Two opponents to my argument were Spencer Park and fellow Cavalier Daily Opinion columnist Alex Mink.
Both Mink and Park make a valid point in suggesting that one’s veneration is not necessarily based on the entirety of the man. In my article, I do agree that Jefferson’s passionate admirers are likely praising Jefferson on the grounds of his achievements. Both are also right to point out that society extols other individuals who were also flawed. To clarify, I chose Jefferson because he is most relevant to our University community. If I did not believe that there is an issue of Jeffersonian sycophancy within our community, my article would have been more general.
In their respective articles, Mink and Park offer Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as an example of a flawed but idolized individual. Mink explains, and Park agrees, that King “acted in a manner we would consider despicable today” on account of his adulterous behaviour. Though I recognize that cheating on one’s partner is wrong, Mink and Park’s comparison is troubling. They seem to suggest that adultery and slave-ownership are morally commensurate. King’s adultery, while certainly reprehensible, was not as damaging as Jefferson’s slavery and racial discrimination. To his friend, Edward Coles, Jefferson wrote that black slaves were “pests in society by their idleness.” Surprisingly, Jefferson also described enslavement as an ”unfortunate condition.” In the case of slavery and racism, Jefferson’s actions speak louder than his words. Though he occasionally did censure slavery, Jefferson’s words do nothing to mitigate his actions, which involved being complicit because he benefitted from this subjugation. Unlike King’s adultery, the effects of racial prejudice and slavery in early America still reverberate into present-day America.
Park goes on to contend that Jefferson was unable to do anything about his slave ownership by virtue of the monumental pressure placed on him by society. This assertion is misleading. After his death, it would be impossible for Jefferson to face societal backlash. Despite this fact, by the time of his death, Jefferson owned 200 slaves and freed only five men. During his lifetime, Jefferson did not retain slaves purely because of societal pressure. Jefferson kept his slaves because they helped build his wealth. If Jefferson were truly against slavery and believed in equality, then he would have freed all of his slaves.
Also, I think it’s important that we take note of the weight Jeffersonian enthusiasts attach to Jefferson’s actions. It seems to me that society does not praise individuals whose immoral deeds outweigh their moralistic deeds. For example, President Richard Nixon provided us with the Environmental Protection Agency, but he was also involved in the Watergate scandal and prolonging the Vietnam War. Despite this laudable feat of establishing the EPA, many Americans castigate him on account of the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War outweighing any and all of his benevolent actions. In the case of Jefferson, however, Mink and Park contend that Jefferson’s accomplishments are more significant to them than his nefarious commitments to subjugation and racism. It’s perturbing to believe that one can value one man’s rhetorical liberty and accomplishments over the lives and well-being of those affected by Jefferson’s bigotry and coercive servitude.
Park posits that Jefferson should be pardoned for his racism and slave ownership on the grounds that he was a victim of his time and culture. This belief is only partly true. Jefferson was overwhelmingly exposed to anti-slavery and anti-racism ideas but remained a staunch supporter and enabler of both institutions. During his time in France, Jefferson’s numerous companions were involved in the effort to end slavery. In fact, our University’s founder was encouraged to join the French Manumission Society, but he refused. Edward Coles even asked Jefferson to offer a gradual emancipation program, but Jefferson was unyielding. The fact is that Jefferson was consistently exposed to and cognizant of ideologies that opposed racism and slavery. Dismissing Jefferson’s participation in both establishments assumes that he lived in a bubble, which is an understandable assumption but also a misinformed one.
Though they raise valid points, Mink and Park are magnanimous in their belief that Jefferson deserves our applause despite his heinous racialism and slave-ownership. He had the chance to take a great stand against slavery but never capitalized on it. Jefferson was a member of a privileged collective that passed up an opportunity to do what was right for what was convenient and favorable to him. Though he was remarkably accomplished, Thomas Jefferson’s achievements do not eclipse the harm he committed by participating in racism and slavery and, consequently, does not deserve our laudation.
Alexander Adames is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Elect Honor representatives committed to transparency
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoEach candidate has looked to the past to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Honor system and has also exhibited forward-thinking solutions to the Committee’s present challenges.
EDITORIAL: Choose UJC representatives who believe in internal reform
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAll four of these candidates articulated innovative and practical ideas to better promote the internal sustainability of UJC.
EDITORIAL: Elect Student Council representatives that advocate for students
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoFurthermore, each of these candidates passionately established their focus on the protection of student resources through bargaining with administration.
