Questioning Thomas Jefferson
It doesn’t seem that long ago, but it has been a couple of years since I wrote a post, objecting to a Thomas Jefferson quote. A friend of mine liked the quote and published it on one of her online social networking accounts. To this day, she still has it up as one of the quotes she likes. The quote that bothered me is this:
“There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.”
The quote’s inherent concepts, implications, and effects still bother me. But it wasn’t until I was watching PBS’ “Moyers & Company” last night that several other feelings and ideas came to my attention and into more light, helping me better understand why I reflexively had such a strong negative response to it.
We Americans tend to glorify our “Founding Fathers,” probably like most nations do. Every nation probably would like to think their progenitors and male patriarchs were smarter and nobler than average. But in “the land of the free,” our Founding Fathers were probably as self-serving, self-preserving, and self-interested as the rest.
Last night, Bill Moyers delivered a candid, beautiful essay on Jefferson, The U.S. Constitution, and Independence Day. His intent was to give a more truthful recounting of the original U.S. Constitution’s provisions and intents.
Below is an excerpt of Moyers’ comments, or you can watch him read his comments here, or the entire episode here.
“Welcome. Here comes the Fourth of July, number 236 since the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence and riders on horseback rushed it to the far corners of the thirteen new United States — where it was read aloud to cheering crowds. These days our celebration of the Fourth brings a welcome round of barbecue, camaraderie with friends and family, fireworks, flags, and unbeatable prices at the mall.
But perhaps, too, we will remember the Declaration of Independence itself, the product of what John Adams called Thomas Jefferson’s “happy talent for composition.” Take some time this week to read it — alone, to yourself, or aloud, with others, and tell me the words aren’t still capable of setting the mind ablaze. The founders surely knew that when they let these ideas loose in the world, they could never again be caged.
Yet from the beginning, these sentiments were also a thorn in our side, a reminder of the new nation’s divided soul. Opponents, who still sided with Britain, greeted it with sarcasm. How can you declare “All men are created equal,” without freeing your slaves? Jefferson himself was an aristocrat whose inheritance of 5000 acres and the slaves to work it, mocked his eloquent notion of equality. He acknowledged that slavery degraded master and slave alike, but would not give his own slaves their freedom. Their labor kept him financially afloat. Hundreds of slaves, forced like beasts of burden to toil from sunrise to sunset under threat of the lash, enabled him to thrive as a privileged gentleman, to pursue his intellectual interests, and to rise in politics. Even the children born to him by the slave Sally Hemings, remained slaves, as did their mother. Only an obscure provision in his will released his children after his death.
All the others — scores of slaves — were sold to pay off his debts. Yes, Thomas Jefferson possessed “a happy talent for composition” — but he employed it for cross purposes. Whatever he was thinking when he wrote “all men are created equal,” he also believed blacks were inferior to whites, inferior, he wrote, “to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.” To read his argument today is to enter the pathology of white superiority that attended the birth of our nation.
So forcefully did he state the case, and so great was his standing among the slave-holding class, that after his death the black abolitionist David Walker would claim Jefferson’s argument had “injured us more, and has been as great a barrier to our emancipation as any thing that has ever been advanced against us,” for it had “…sunk deep into the hearts of millions of the whites, and never will be removed this side of eternity.”
So, the ideal of equality Jefferson proclaimed, he also betrayed. He got it right when he wrote about “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As the core of our human aspirations. But he lived it wrong, denying to others the rights he claimed for himself. And that’s how Jefferson came to embody the oldest and longest war of all — the war between the self and the truth, between what we know and how we live.”
~ end of excerpt ~
After listening to Moyers’ commentary above, Jefferson’s quote of “There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people” is more unsettling. Jefferson was not only racist, believing whites were genetically superior to “blacks” and other minorities, but he was also sexist. He crafted the original U.S. Constitution to be the core legal instrument to define both slaves and all women as less valuable than Caucasian men. All of his eloquence with words could not hide the fact the original US Constitution was designed to promote enslavement of African-Americans and to deny equal rights to women. The original US Constitution was designed to promote the preservation and selling of slaves and other property in order to protect the wealth of the Caucasian privileged classes. Voting rights were narrowly and carefully limited so only white men would be able to determine the laws of the land. Native Americans, in most of our country’s founding documents, were completely devalued, defined as “savages,” supporting the core rationales for policies of not only theft of all Native American property, but even more horrific, the systematic, legally condoned, government-enforced, and militarily-enabled genocide of Native Americans.
One of Jefferson’s characteristics that bothers me the most is he clearly had a long-term, social and sexual relationship with Sally Hemings, and he denied the existence and nature of the relationship. As a result, he ended up treating and defining his own children as slaves and under-class citizens during his lifetime. He wasn’t supposed to fall in love with “that kind of inferior woman.” He wasn’t supposed to be in “that kind of sexual relationship.” So, to save his reputation, employment, and social standing, he repeatedly threw his significant other and their children under the bus. Two of his four children with Sally Hemings were freed when they came of age. The other two were not freed during his lifetime. They were only released from slavery after his death, through a provision in his will.
It’s an awful thing when someone mistreats a stranger. It must be a special kind of hell to mistreat your significant other or children. Although, it is disturbingly amazing the cruelties a human mind can justify when it is given enough cultural messages and convinces itself to treat others unequally.
If you take more than a cursory look at Jefferson, you’ll discover some interesting facts:
Not only did Jefferson regularly sleep with, have sexual relations with, and have children with his slave Sally Hemings. Sally Hemings was also likely the half-sister of Thomas Jefferson’s wife Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson, because Martha’s father, John Wayles, an attorney and slave trader, also had sexual relations and children with his slave Betty Hemings, Sally Hemings’ mother.
The hypocrisies, contradictions, and misrepresentations in Thomas Jefferson’s personal and public ethical gymnastics were multi-layered.
- -
Why do these things bother me in present day?
As an advocate for LGBT individuals and their relationships, I’m troubled when LGBT individuals feel they need to hide their relationships in order to save their reputations, social contacts, and jobs.
There are still many people who have secret, loving relationships. These relationships sometimes remain secret because the individuals don’t want to lose their jobs or social standing. When significant others are hidden, they often are devalued or belittled. The two things almost always go hand in hand. The one often leads to the other. And there is no one on this planet who should be loved only in hiding. There is no significant other who should be treated as a member of an inferior social class.
The issues of “sexuality and love in the arts” have always been with us. Principles of equality and fairness continue to be present day challenges. It’s always been a good idea, and it continues to be a good idea, to treat people equally and fairly, even if you judge them to be “unequal” or “inferior” by your standards.
- -
Most Recent Artworks Artists’ Artworks Index RSS or Follow in sidebar ->

From JB:
July 1, 2012
8:45 PM CST
From Wiki :
Zeitgeist (German pronunciation: [ˈtsaɪtɡaɪst] ( listen)) is “the spirit of the times” or “the spirit of the age.” [1] Zeitgeist is the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, or political climate within a nation or even specific groups, along with the general ambiance, morals, sociocultural direction, and mood associated with an era.
Quote :
“He wasn’t supposed to be in “that kind of sexual relationship.”…
“… it is disturbingly amazing the cruelties a human mind can justify when it is given enough cultural messages and convinces itself to treat others unequally.”
The moral ambiguity of the founding fathers has been and will be debated for a long time.
Furthermore, I don’t like invoking the “Zeitgeist” template on most issues, but as we sit in the comfort zone of our 20th century middleclass habitats, surrounded by the spiritually softening effects of an increasingly invasive technology, simple humility just might suggest that we tend to our own back yard if we insist on casting moral judgments on the dead. Two centuries dead I might add.
No, “Zeitgeist” is not an “excuse”, as others have opined. It just happens to lend a narrower focus on a peculiar reality of human nature : the “eternal” split between the intellect and human emotion.
Rather than an excuse, Zeitgeist gives us perspective. If your a caring, empathic individual, coming out of a 20th century perspective, then it is a given that you will yield to the temptation of casting the entire 18th century into the hell-flames of moral decrepitude. Those founding fathers : Idiot savants. Moral muties.
But that’s too easy.
What’s difficult is reconciling the historical record of blood letting to the intellectual and progressive advances wrought out of the blood pool : Difficult yes, but you must face it nevertheless.
On an evolutionary scale, human emotion is much older than intellect. The approximate two-thirds ratio in mass for the neocortex in humans is very new, say within the last 50 to 100 thousand years, if that much, assuming you subscribe to MacLean’s evolutionary triune brain theory. Jefferson openly admitted his moral ambiguity, but it chained both him and his slaves down nevertheless.
“Given enough cultural messages”, compounded by the evolutionary split between human emotion and intellect which haunts and cripples our genome to this very day, we may at times be put off, disillusioned, and yes, most definitely disgusted by it; but we should not be surprised.
It is the force in our nature. A fact of our nature. Barring invasive genetic manipulation, which by the by is currently under blueprint scrutiny, (perhaps not soon enough for some), all we can console ourselves with for the moment is to invoke the Socratic notion : Know thyself.
Beats the hell out of Zeitgeist, does it not ?
J.B.
- -
Mark: James. Thank you. I would think common hypocrises in social mores have always existed. Privileged classes have long used “social morals” as a controlling measure over lower classes, not interested in following them for themselves. I would hope, as we become more “educated,” fewer hypocrises would exist. But that may always only be a hope.
I’m not trying to bash Thomas Jefferson’s ethical decisions out of cultural and time contexts. Judged against his peers, he was a practical and brilliant politician, moving concepts of modern government signficantly forward at a fast rate. I suspect social changes will eventually come, but Jefferson, like other major US political figures, at least was out on the leading edges of some changes. He at least made public stances and took swings at the ball.
Gary, I appreciate your comments. I still get them. I just don’t care to take the time to rebut all of them. As you know, it’s a big web, and you can always create your own blog. But I don’t wish to spend as much time as would be needed to deal with your broad strokes. BTW, Gore Vidal, if you simply google “Gore Vidal Charlie Rose video” was a great admirer of many of the US Founding Fathers, even ones you suggeted he primarily criticized. Vidal understood pragmatism and political necessities and limitations. You can see his comments in the second half of the video here:
Gore Vidal and the Founding Fathers
No one is saying the Founding Fathers were saints. One of my main purposes of this post was to give specific examples that likely contradict many widely-held assumptions. This post does not attempt to lump all of them and all of their motives into overstated, ambiguously defined, or misleading categories.
Reblogged this on The Realm of Wonder.
…11:56 PM CST…
Mark,
…Still I understand why it bothers you. It bothers me as well.
It may help if we were to acknowledge the burden more on the legacy of Victorian hypocrisy, wrought out of the extreme sexual repression so endemic to that period. Where did all this sexual/psychic repression come from ? The 18th century presaged all the…shall we say…”eccentric” foibles perfected by the Victorians; the Victorians were not born in a vacuum. Historians I’ve noticed in recent years are doing much better at “revisionist” history; the “Renaissance” was not always, perhaps not even most of the time, a bastion of “re-birth”.
The same can be said for the old classroom rubric “The Age of Enlightenment”…not as “enlightened” as we were taught or as we would like to believe.
J.B.
As a relative and historian of Jefferson with close family contacts I am happy to definitely tell our audience that (a) Jefferson abhorred slavery but had no power to stop it..perhaps fifty years after his death his ideas spurred Lincoln. Having sexual relations with slaves and even making babies was FOR THAT TIME evidence of affection and only that; compare it with love affair with servant or next door neighbor today. JEFFERSON was as close to being a perfect man for those days as we could find in history. (b) applying questionable moral judgements of today to any life of the past is simply poor thought and belief. Bill Cobbs
- –
Mark: While I appreciate the comment and opinion, your use of all caps is condescending, your comparative judgments are wide sweeping (some under the rug), and if you spell judgement (with that usage) with an “e”, you should also spell color with a “u.”
Yes, sometimes, many of us do as comparatively good as modern cultural restrictions practically allow.
Grow up Mark! Bill Cobbs