Americas third president Thomas Jefferson, focusing on his words and actions on slavery and race. This video is courtesy of the university. Its from their great live s lecture series. I am pleased to announce a special miniseries of six lectures entitled great president ial lives. This series is particularly attractive for two main reasons. The first being its timeliness. A president ial election year, it will be an insight all of us can be in. The second is the speaker himself. Our esteemed umw professor, william b. Crawley, who has just completed 50 years on the faculty of the university of mary washington. During a half century, he has contributed in innumerable ways and significant ways. Certainly not least of all the creation of our renowned Historic Preservation program and the creation of this amazing great lives series. But it is for his excellence and teachings that he is perhaps best known, and to literally thousands of our students who have come through our halls, he has received our institutions highest honors and teaching. Both from his colleagues and from his students. Many of whom through the years have voted him as a faculty member who has made the greatest impact upon their lives. Dr. Crawley, through these years, has become a true icon of this community. And so, it is with great pleasure that i introduced Professor William b crawley. Who, drawing upon his years of teaching political history, has truly learned and shared so much of his knowledge, and will be sharing it again with us today as he looks at the lifes of one of six highly interesting and sometimes controversial president s. And like many modernday president s, none are so straightforward as the story may recall, were that history may have told us. Would you please share with us . Dr. Crawley today, i will talk about Thomas Jefferson. Let me begin with something of a disclaimer. Whenever i have spoken on jefferson, i am reminded of a prominent historian who said that he never fully trusted anyones views on jefferson that attended the university of virginia. Well i have to plead guilty on that score, having spent four years in graduate school in mr. Jeffersons academical village in charlottesville. Jefferson himself was quite proud of that institution, specifically directed at the words father of the university the only one of three accomplishments that should constitute his epitaph. The other being the author of the virginia statute of religious freedom. And the university has been very proud of its founder, treating his memory with such reverence that president william taft once said after delivering a lecture, people still talk of mr. Jefferson as though he was in the next room. And might overhear them. I trust having my association with uva does not render me in incompetent to assess jeffersons career. One thing, and personally, i am not giving the hero worship, and professionally, i have believed that my goal should not be to indoctrinate, but to enlighten, and thus not to be to demonize my subjects. With that said, the truth is that Thomas Jefferson has long held a place, and to many, the highest place within the pantheon of american political healers. Among the nations founders, he provided a significant amount of talents and produced the most accomplishments. He has been regarded as the most intellectual, recalling that off quoted comment by president john f. Kennedy, who, when offering a dinner toast to a group of Nobel Laureates at the white house, said that they constituted the most extraordinary collection of talent and Human Knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the white house. With the possible exception of when jefferson died alone. It was the eloquent voice that jefferson gave to the american democracy that made him so revered and most notably, his proposition to the declaration of independence, thats why we hold these truths to be selfevident and that all men are created equal and they are endowed to unalienable rights and the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The very core of the american creed. One historian has claimed that no figure of our past has embodied so much of our heritage and so much of our hopes. It is with that reason, near the end of the 20th century and also the end of the millennium, that a columnist went so far to suggest that Thomas Jefferson was the most significant person on the planet for the last 1000 years. Well, it sounds pretty extravagant, but it will make a case. This is how he explains it, the argument for jefferson is that history is essentially the history of the human mind of ideas, jefferson was preeminently the mind of the revolution that succeeded. It resulted in the birth of the modern nation that in the 20th First Century saved the world from tyranny. Jefferson expressed the american ideal. Allocated limited and enumerated powers, and he expressed it in eloquent phrases, but also the way he lived. A statesman, scientists, architect, educator. Regarding his own legacy, it jefferson implored James Madison to take care of me when dea d. He need not worry, for the most part, certainly up to the first five or six decades of the 20th century, historians share the popular view of jefferson being virtually beyond reproach. Clearly, his extraordinary career would seem to have justified that reputation. So lets take a very quick look at jeffersons career very briefly. He was born april 13, 1743 and 1743 near charlottesville. His father became a successful planter. He joined the upperclass by marrying jane randolph. Thomas jefferson had wealth, status and tradition of public service. He studied law and he himself became a successful and wellknown lawyer in virginia. He was imposing an appearance standing over six feet tall and that was unusual for that day, and with red hair. For a public figure, he was shy and avoided public appearances whenever possible. He was elected to the state legislator, which was in the house of burgess he is in 1769. By which time he owned more than 2500 acres of land and a substantial number of slaves. 1772 he married a young widow, martha skelton, through whom he doubled his property and increased his number of slaves. He was cast into a deep depression by the death of his wife in 1782. He never remarried. He became known as a supporter of independence from britain and the coauthor of the declaration of independence, along with Benjamin Franklin and john adams. He served in congress in the mid1780s. In 1785, he replaced franklin as minister to france and spent five years in europe. It was significant because during that time he became Close Friends with lafayette and wrote the notes on the state of virginia about moral labor. He returned to america at the end of 1789 and was appointed secretary of state by george washington. In 1797, he became Vice President and finished a close second behind his rival john adams in his contest to the presidency. He was elected president in the 1800. Greatest accomplishment of his administration was the acquisition of louisiana from france in 1803. He was easily reelected to a second term in 1804, but it proved to be trouble by developments in europe as napoleon rose to power. After leaving the presidency he retired to monticello and concerned himself with establishing the university of virginia, which was founded in 1819. And finally, by strange fate, and i think this must be the most extraordinary coincidence, the most extraordinary that i can ever recall reading about, both jefferson and john adams, died on july 4, 1826. During the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence. You probably have heard this, and allegedly adams last words were, jefferson lives. But he had not. He had died earlier that day. As this brief biographical sketch indicates that these are great competence. These are great accomplishments, no doubt. But as i alluded to earlier, i they have been shattered by different interpretation and decided on the more negative interpretation that has risen among the latest of scholars. The reason for his decline is not hard to find. These writers have focused major attention on that area of jeffersons life that by modern standards is the least attractive in the most vulnerable, that is his views on slavery and race. Perhaps it was predictable that this would happen that in america, that in the wake of the civil rights movement, became more aware of racial injustice. When that happened, the damage to jeffersons unblemished stature was inevitable. These newer critics have struck at his achilles heel, which was the heel of oppression that he ground into the backs of his slaves. We have reached the point in the debate, were a lot of biographers declared in the multiracial american future, jefferson will not be revered. His flaws are beyond redemption. The sound you hear is the crashing of a reputation. About the position . Thats the basic question i want to address during the remainder of my comments today. And i want to do it in the following way, first to examine briefly jeffersons theories on race and slavery. Second, to look at his actions about public and private regarding slavery. And finally, in light of recent criticism, to suggest a summary evaluation of jefferson and his proper place in history with particular regard to slavery and race. Lets look first then at jeffersons thoughts concerning race and slavery and look at what he actually had to say on those subjects. Its somewhat surprising how little jefferson actually wrote on anything given his highly intellectual nature. Much of what we know of his thoughts comes mainly from his letters, and from the longest of his publish works. The aforementioned notes on the state of virginia, which was published in france in 1785. Even the notes are far from a polish systematic statement of the views, and he didnt actually intend for it to be published at all. He wrote in response to a request from a french official when he was in paris and he did so with the intention of being of it being read by a select group. Basically french intellectuals, for whom he was trying to explain the government, the economy, and social structure of his native virginia. It was pirated and became public. So eventually jefferson owned up to it, and with some embarrassment. As one of his biographers puts it, had jefferson had his way, the only book he ever wrote and in this case hadnt been published his opinions on slavery would not have been published during his lifetime. Our talk today, and unfortunately for his place in history, jefferson did leave a fairly quite a bit of information on African American and his views, and also on slavery in particular. So, what do these reveal about his thinking . We may do well to begin with what they call his central dilemma. That was that he hated slavery but thought negroes inferior to whites. This was a serious dichotomy in jeffersons thought. And its caused him a lot of intellectual suffering, just as it has caused modern scholars to puzzle over the true jefferson, his central dilemma. He hated slavery but thought blacks inferior to whites. Now, this is a difficult intellectual position. On one hand, he conservatively said there is no indication in any of his works that jefferson felt slavery to be right. And yet at the same time, on the other hand, theres every reason to believe that jefferson did not indeed believe that blacks were equal to whites, and that goes against his words of all men were created equal. What is the evidence in his writing that says he didnt agree with slavery . Several things might be noted, but for one thing, he took no pride in owning slaves. In fact, he tended to regard them as a burden rather than a blessing. He seems to not even have liked the word slave itself and often used the word servants, in lieu of slaves. And he acknowledged, on various occasions, that he felt that the slaves must have been, in his words, miserable, and he referred to slavery as a hideous evil. Yet, even though its clear that jefferson didnt believe the condition of the slave was desirable, it wasnt the primary reason why he didnt like slavery. Instead, the main reason which he expressed well opposing slavery, was the harmful effect that it had on white society. In other words, his main attack was not against the cruelty of the system to blacks, but against what he believed to be the injustice of the system to whites. Now how can that be . This is the way he explained it, in his notes on virginia. There was doubtless and influence on our people, produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, and despotism, that children see this, and learn to imitate it for man is an imitative animal. With the morals of the people, their industry also destroyed, for in a warm climate, no man will labor for himself when he could make another labor for him. End quote. In other words, slavery was bad training for democracy. Now opponents of slavery had traditionally been concerned with the effect of the institution upon slave owners. Jefferson wasnt the first or the last to express such a view. But with jefferson, it seemed to be almost his only concern. As one expert puts it, he said jefferson went to his grave thinking that slavery was people and to white with the effects to blacks, he was not concerned. So, jefferson was concerned with what we might call the corrosive internal effect on society. At the same time, however, as i noted earlier, jefferson believed that the black race was inferior. From his notes on virginia, there can be little doubt to this point. Its precisely on this point that colleagues have criticized him. In his notes, jefferson addresses himself to what he called the real distinction , end quote,de between the races. In doing so, he considers not only physical but, the mental and moral differences. As to the physical, jefferson was predisposed against blacks. Even their color seem to offend him. He wrote at one point for example, disparaging, that internal monotony, not need the immovable veil of black which covers all their emotions. As to the mental abilities of africanamericans, hes quite clear. He unquestionably believed them to be inferior to whites. He said, comparing them by their faculties of memory reason and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites, but in reason, much inferior. Nor did he believe they had any talent. Whenever he was confronted with claims of superior work by black authors and poets, such as benjamin banneker, or phillis wheatley, jefferson remained highly skeptical, to put it mildly. Now it might be assumed that he attributed some of these perceived shortcomings to lack of opportunity, that is to the environment in which africanamericans were forced to live. But that was not apparently the case. Is not theote, it condition, but nature which has produced this distinction between the two races. In short, jeffersons fundamental attitude in the issue of race seems to be summed up, as he quoted passage in virginia, which he said quote, i advance it as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, made distinct by time and circumstance, are inferior to whites in body and mind. As i noted earlier, jefferson also addressed himself to the physical and mental attributes, but also to what he called moral sense of the African Americans. And in this respect, he argued that blacks were equal to whites. Moreover, he argued that if there were any shortcomings on the part of blacks in this regard, such a deficiency should be attributed to the environment. He put it this way and give an example. He said if a slave stole from the master, say chickens from the barnyard, such an act he said, quote, must be situation. Their if such theory occurred, he claimed it was fully understandable. Quote, the man, in whose favor no laws of property exist probably feels himself less bound to respect those laws made in favor of others. And therefore he asked, rhetorically, might not the slave, quote, justifiably take a little from one who has taken everything from him . So much for jeffersons theories, but what were his actions regarding slavery . Lets look first his public actions and then well get to his private behavior. Such as we know of it. At the risk of oversimplification, it might be so that jeffersons public involvement went from spoken opposition to quiet opposition, to that of despair, acquiesce resignation to the end of his life. Earlier in his career, for example, there were indications, that he certainly had qualms about slavery, and in particular, slave trade. As early as 1774, he had blamed the British Government for slave trade. Two years later, in 1776 he drafted the virginia constitution, which stated flatly no person hereafter coming into virginia will be held in slavery, under no pretext whatever. Though unfortunately, that draft was not adopted. With regard to outright abolition, he was much more cautious. In 1784, he moved to what was his most important antislavery action of his career. It was in that year that he sponsored a bill, before the virginia legislature, which would have granted freedom to all slaves and blacks born after the passage of that act. Obviously, could have made a dramatic difference. But when the bill went before the legislature the following year, jefferson withdrew his support for it because he claimed he had found that the public mind would not yet there the proposition. He found out it was unpopular with the voters. This action shows us two highly attitudes towards emancipation. First, it was if he withdrew his proposal for the reason he did. Thats because the public would not yet agreed. He was a politician and he had to be concerned with Public Opinion. The second revelation for this episode is that jeffersons proposal for gradual emancipation which would have required the removal of all , ine slaves, which would his words, that they should be colonized to such places where circumstances at the time. And this demand for deportation, of colonization was one of the real constants in jeffersons actions in regards to slavery. He simply wanted all freed blacks to be sent to the west indies, africa, or anywhere outside the United States. Why was this . The answer is that he simply seemed not to believe that the races could live together side by side in harmonious equality. And in his notes in virginia, he explained why he felt this way, as follows. Deeprooted prejudices by the whites, 10,000 recollections by the blacks about the injuries that they have sustained. Real distinction, as nature has made, and in many other circumstances, they produced convulsions that would never end but in the extermination of the one race or the other. Pretty strong words. Again, at the end of his life, in 1777, in his unfinished autobiography, he reiterated this view. He noted that he concluded that it was in his words, that was certain the two races, equally free, could not live under the same government. In view of such statements, he stated flatly, the entire body of jeffersons writings showed he never syriza considered the as a until his death. Or as another more critical historian put it, nothing is more certain than that Thomas Jefferson didnt attend intend that black people would be free in america. And that free blacks were to be banished. Well, most of what i have talked about so far deals with his attempts regarding slavery at state level. But of course, jefferson was a national figure, as well, and as such, he was involved with the slavery issue at that level, as well. Most important, of his national act and as it came during the period of confederation, thats before the current constitution went into effect. During that time, jefferson devised a bill known as the ordinance of 1784. This piece of legislature, if passed, wouldve had a potentially great impact because it would have prohibited the extension of slavery into any of the western territories of the United States after 1800. Again, this would made a serious difference. But the ordinance of 1784 failed to pass by a margin of one vote. But any case, that proposal was significant for two reasons. First, in the long run, it raised a principle of which many future attacks on slavery would rest. And that is that the spread of slavery could and should be limited by the federal government, which was the basis of the free soil doctrine of the antebellum years. And secondly, in the short run, it certainly inspired an act three years later, the northwest ordinance of 1787, which banned slavery in the northwest. And were not talking about oregon and washington. This is the old northwest. So, the enactment prevented slavery from ever being established in the northwest. Thats ohio and indiana and jefferson must be given credit for that legislation. On the other hand, jefferson folks, would listen there is always an on the other hand with jefferson people. On this case, on the other hand, if he is to be credited with limiting the spread of slavery in that regard, then you have to bet he may have been blamed for its expansion in other areas. Where in particular . In louisiana because the purchase of louisiana from france in 1803 did permit the spread of slavery, or at least it was not forbidden in that huge area. How valid is that criticism . Well, the actual sister waist is the actual situation is that slavery already existed in louisiana territory. It had been under spanish and late under the french, and i suppose it is doubtful if the purchase wouldve been carried out if slavery hadnt been allowed to continue. I dont know how it really would have been banned in any case, but it came with the package, unfortunately. Well, the fact is, friends, that after the 1800s, jefferson was able to do very little to decrease slavery. For a while, he remained reasonably optimistic however, writing to one of his friends in 1814, the hour of emancipation is advancing. In the march of time, it will come. And yet, as jeffersons life progressed, the likelihood appeared to decrease rather than to increase, as well see, and the court of jefferson appeared to become more pessimistic. Now, what ive been talking about so far dealt with his public actions. But well also take some look at his personal interactions with slavery. It is something that he was intimately acquainted with. He recalled that his first memories was that he was, and my point is he knew slavery literally from the crib to the grave. He said his first memory was that of being carried on a pillow slave, and it was a slave carpenter who made the coffin in which he was buried in. And in between, throughout his adult life, he was the owner of between 100 slaves and 200 slaves, making him a very substantial slave owner. Now, we dont know much about his daytoday behavior as a slave owner. The assumption in the past was generally that he has been benevolent and enlightened master, but that assumption has been questioned by recent historians. One whom points out that 1 7 of his slaves apparently ran away, a high percentage, which jefferson himself records that he sometimes had his slaves whipped. In short, it now appears the jefferson was for lack of a better term, an average slave owner, difficult as, impossible as that term is, i suppose, to define. There is one reason one historian put it, he was a typical southern slave owner. He may have been a benign pot, but a despot nonetheless. The fact is that in the historical record, well there is nothing getting us to believe that he was anymore ruthless or any more benevolent than other slaveowners of his time. Now, jeffersons personal involvement slavery always of course brings up the issue of Sally Hemmings, his alleged slave mistress. This is a subject about which an enormous amount has been written and not surprisingly because after all, it has all the ingredients to fascinate the public. A historical figure, a preeminent importance, interracial, white exploitation of blacks, the kind of thing that if it had existed couldve kept Oprah Winfrey in the tabloids and social media for months. The charge, as im sure you all know, is that jefferson was the father of four, maybe even five or six children by his slave. Sally hemmings. That story is widely known, having been the subject of at least one novel, one movie of a pbs special, and a couple of Television Mini series and has been the focal point of several biographies in recent years. Written by those most critical of jefferson. Now, this is a subject which by itself could take up more time than we are allotted today. Let me just add generally agreed which the on speculation is based. First, jeffersons wife martha died in 1872, after which jefferson never remarried, remaining a widower for the remaining 44 years of his life. During that time, his slave Sally Hemmings, which was halfsister of his late wife, bore for children who survived to adulthood although jackson was often absent from monticello. Record shows present at the time that those conceptions wouldve occurred. Many accounts of a hemmings offspring say they were so lightskinned that they often passed for white. And perhaps the most noteworthy piece of evidence in the view of many is that the hemmings children were essentially the only slaves that jefferson ever freed, or allowed to go free. The question is, does this all add up to his paternity . Old scholars say up through the 1960s and 1970s, to them, it surely did not add up. They essentially scoffed at the notion and dismissed it, mainly on the reverential theory that if i may put it this way, that jefferson just wasnt that sort of man. Was he . They also put heavy emphasis on the fact that this story of the affair with Sally Hemmings was first disseminated in 1802 during jeffersons first term as president by one james calendar, who was an embittered political opponent of jefferson and a notorious scandal monger. Now unquestionably, by all accounts, calendar was a disreputable person. In the words of one historian quoting, despicable individual ruled by venom and racism. And yet, even as this writer points out, a vile and vicious person isnt always an untruthful one. It would be perhaps unwise to reject the story purely on a ccount of the dubious character of its provisional purveyor. In any case, recent scholars have tended to give credence to the story beginning most notably with in 1974 study called Thomas Jefferson, an intimate biography and a 1997 book, Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemmings and controversy. In lieu of going to further detail, myself today, i commend both of these to you. If you wish to pursue. A few years ago, with dna tests, if i determined correctly, apparently they do not prove jefferson fathered sallys children, but they do give significant support across ability. For one thing they conclusively do rule is that the paternity of josephs nephew, who has usually been regarded as a prime suspect is fairly to suspect. Its fairly tape safe to say that it would eventually concede its validity. Having looked at jeffersons thought on the matter of slavery and his public and ive it acts regarding the institution, lets turn to an overall evaluation of the man both viewed by and most important within the context of his own times. It is certainly true that assessments of jefferson have been highly divergent over the years, as you would expect given his complex nature and has long and highly visible public career. In his own times, his admirers on him with such titles as the sage of monticello and hailed him as the most learned man in the world. His opponents were not so charitable, including one who referred to him as, quote, that red headed son of a bitch. After days of almost uniform veneration by his stories, as i mentioned earlier, in some cases, with just as much hostility. The explanation for this, i suppose, lies partly through the apparent inevitability of this talk of revisionism. Its one of jeffersons own biographer as you noted, quote, american political heroes of both past and present are in trouble, assaulted openly and from ambush, from the right and from the left, and even from seemingly innocuous professors of history. And so it is that we have witnessed in recent years series aspersions upon notify figures from Christopher Columbus to Abraham Lincoln to john f. Kennedy. But nowhere has been more stark than in the case of jefferson so it behooves us to conclude part of our election today to examine some of the chief criticism and to offer, if not exactly a rebuttal, at least a measure of explanation. Fundamental to the revisionist thrust is the conflict present throughout jeffersons life, between word and deed. The contradiction inherent in the expression of human equality with unmatched eloquence of other human beings. That, incredulity, was noted in his own times by no less figure than dr. Samuel johnson, who once asked, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the owners of slaves . Picking up that theme in modern times, one prominent historian pointed out the irony of that quote, the leisure that made possible jefferson great legs on human liberty, supported by the laborers of three generations of slaves. And the list could go on. The basic point being, far from being an icon of democracy, jefferson was in fact a racist hypocrite. Now, within that overall critique allies several charges, either explicit or implicit. The first is jefferson, in reality, accomplished very very little with regard to eradicating slavery, and in some ways, his efforts active actively assaulted its spread. Several points seem to be made, and the first, i think the most fundamental one is that any effort the jefferson may have undertaken to end slavery plays an enormous and increasing economic obstacle. And here is why. Earlier in jeffersons career, and up through the writing of the constitution, slavery was widely believed to be a dying institution. In fact, it was this belief in the inevitable economic demise of slavery that allowed for the creation of the constitution. It was almost universally believed it was going to die out. Unfortunately, just the opposite happened. Instead of dying out, slavery took on new life in the 1790s, specifically after 1793 when eli whitney invented the cotton gin. What this meant, to make a long story very short, is that cotton could then become profitably grown, not just along the south atlantic seaboard, but throughout the south, all the way to texas. And the resulting spread of cotton was dramatic, and its need for extensive imagine manual labor tremendous hamilton yes spread of slavery, and soon the institution that seem destined for demise was now increasingly entrenched with the production of cotton and the ownership of slaves constituted a very pinnacle of southern society, sure certification of status and prestige. But that wasnt all. It vastly increased number of slaves to almost 4 million by the time of the civil war. It raised in the minds of many whites, the problems of social control that had failure to arise with emancipation. Jefferson himself spoke directly to this point when he wrote on one occasion regarding the possibility, and i think this is one of his most telling observations. Summing up as he did the essence of jeffersons concerns when he wrote, quote, talking about whether or not to abolish slavery. He said, we have the wolf by the ears. We can either safely hold him or safely let him go. Justice, emancipation, is in the one scale, self preservation in the other. His own solution, as we have seen, was colonization. All of this is just to illustrate any impulses he may have had with the direction of a with the direction of emancipation ran headlong into the hard economic realities of the times and the pervasive social fears, which of course created a Formidable Political problem, that we think of jefferson as a statesman, which he was. But before you become a statesman, he had to be a politician, a practical politician, one concerned about what the republic mind would bear. And this is the way one historian describes jeffersons lack of assertiveness on this issue. Said, vital as the abolition of slavery was to him, when he had the rebuffs he suffered when he had proposed plans for freeing the slaves had demonstrated him that the press too hard on this issue was to risk a premature end to his political career and preclude him from accomplishing any constructive purpose whatever. In other words, he was unwilling to sacrifice his whole career on the altar of abolition or, as John Quincy Adams put it most for cinque leanne aptly, simply and most aptly, mr. Jefferson did not have the spirit of martyrdom. Interestingly, jefferson himself address this matter of his apparent reticence on the issue, sensing that subsequent critics would bring charges of hypocrisy. The reason for his restraint was and he explained in so many words was, to paraphrase, the time wasnt right. He put it more eloquently than that, writing on one occasion that, listen to this, the moment of doing it with success has not yet arrived, and the unsuccessful effort, as too often happens, would only rivets ever closer the chains of bondage. Much later his life, in fact, only two weeks before his death, he returned to that subject, explaining his position this way. Again, a good quote. Oftend cause, he said causes injured more by ill times efforts of its friends them by the argument of his enemies. Persuasion, perseverance, and patience are the best advocates in questions depending on the will of others. The revolution of Public Opinion which this cause inquires is not to be expected in a day or perhaps in an age, but time, which outlives all things, will outlive this people also. Concerning another modern criticism of jefferson, some have conceded it might have been too much for him to have engineered the abolition of the entire institution of slavery, but given his commitment to individual liberty, might not had freed his own slaves. Two explanations are offered. One is that he kept them because he thought they would be better off as his slaves then if they were freed and had to fend for themselves. Ive always thought this would be a flimsy reason, because i suspect, given a choice, the great majority of devoted slaves wouldve opted for freedom. On the other hand, theres a possibility in it, in theory, because the plight of most freed blacks in the antebellum south was difficult and extreme. There is a more fundamental reason, a more likely reason for his position, thats that the economics, he could not afford to free them because they were essential to his livelihood. We tend to think of jefferson as a wealthy man, as by his grandeur of monticello. But to put it bluntly, he lived beyond his means. To such an extent he nearly lost monticello and his descendents did lose it. In such financial straits, he he could hardly have afforded to divest himself of such a major portion of his assets, even if he wanted to. In this regard, he was different than george washington, who is a was a much better businessman and did provide for feeding freedom of his slaves after his death. Now it should be noted that this explanation of jeffersons actions does not nullify his most ardent critics. Whom one have concluded that to , judge from his lifelong behavior, jeffersons grand style was more important to him than the natural rights of the slaves. Now, on the last point of criticism, namely that jefferson was a racist, there can be no real exculpation of this. Nothing can disguise the fact that, by modernday standards, he was a racist. As is made abundantly clear on his notes, but not all of which i quoted to you. I told my students over the years, it would be good to read the notes of virginia to see jeffersons views in some detail, but dont do it if you have a weak stomach or a weak constitution. Or if youre a jefferson idolater, because it is pretty rough stuff. But the notes, its pretty graphic. But not appealing to us today to read those words. But any case, thats what he wrote. And thats where were left with his views on race. What we can do, though, i think, and should do is consider two things. The first that there simply is such racial views should be considered within the context of his own times. And this is a period, ladies and gentlemen, where virtually no one thought differently. And indeed, in jeffersons own times, the odd concept wasnt that he owned slaves, which is widespread and had been in existence for time in memorial, but this strange thing was his concept of human equality. That struck people as an odd idea, many people. Belief in black inferiority was unfortunately a universal belief among whites in that time. And not in jeffersons own time, but throughout the 19th century and even into the 20th century. Perhaps, as unfortunate as it is, it is unreasonable to expect that he would have believed something drastically different from that. Would that he had. But the larger point seems to me involves another pertinent question, to what use did he put those views that we would consider racist . He might well have proceeded from those used to develop a strong argument in favor of slavery, as some of his contemporaries and southern leaders did, based on the presumption of black inferiority. For example, john c. Calhoun, argue bily arguably the most important politician following jeffersons death, advocated slavery this way. Yet this. Following jeffersons death once advocated slavery this way. Get this. Some are born with saddles on their backs, and others booted and spurred to ride them. And the riding does them good. But jefferson never took this approach. As far as i know, he never once suggested that the inferiority of blacks, which he presumed, was a legitimate justification for their enslavement. This can be seen frequently throughout his writing but is Crystal Clear in a letter he wrote in 1809. He said, speaking of blacks, he wrote that quote, whatever their talent, it is no measure of their rights. Just because sir isaac newsom and newtons was in was superior to those in intelligence, though blacksn were inferior, that didnt constitute grounds for enslavement. Finally, what can we say by way of a summary about jefferson today . In light of the vicissitudes of his historical appraisal, perhaps it is best to view evaluate jefferson as he was viewed in his own times, and viewed by people who actually knew him and worked with him. Even that effort produces contradictions. One historian put it this way, he said, and listen closely. In the 19th century, abolitionists used jeffersons words as swords. Slaveholders used his example as a shield. Pretty good, isnt it . On the whole, however, it seems that in the minds of most of his contemporaries, jefferson was regarded, and i think rightly so, as a man of human ideals, although he could not find a solution to the problem of slavery, who could who did, he still never advocated that institution. And to appreciate the significance, jefferson must be placed in contrast to many of his contemporaries and almost all of his successors in positions of southern leadership, men like calhoun, for example. My point is, so long as jeffersons ideals flourish, there was always a skepticism to towards a slavery, a question of the institution, and a hope that a solution to it might be found. In short, the existence of jeffersonian ideals made senators uneasy about their position, which is so obviously in conflict with the american creed, a creed which anyone else had a stove had helped to establish. A creed which jefferson, more than anyone else, helped to establish. But it was not long before that liberalism began to fade, and soon to be replaced by an oppressive conservatism and conformity that characterized the antebellum years after jeffersons death. All of this had its effect on jefferson, diminishing the optimism he once exhibited. Jeff incident spoke more truth than he realized when he wrote in 1826, on the subject of emancipation, i have ceased to think because its not to be a work of my day. And he was right. Within a year, he was dead. And with him, the brightest light of liberalism in the old south was extinguished. To understand, finally, what jefferson meant in his own times, we should look not to his own times, we should look to understand, finally, what jefferson meant in his own times, we should look not to recent historians but to his contemporaries. And i will conclude by quoting three of those contemporaries. The first was a white abolitionist congressman who asked, who taught me to hate slavery and every other form of oppression . It was jefferson, the great and good jefferson. The second contemporary, also a congressman, said similarly, if for i to write a history of american slavery, i would say that mr. Jefferson was entitled to credit the first antislavery first publicly expressing antislavery sentiments of this country, and he was the force of the anti slavery movement. Lastly, the third contemporary was quite different. Hes not a congressman, and hes not white. And his feelings were expressed not for public consumption, but on a personal level to jefferson himself. The historian that records the story tells us the letter was written with the painful care of a hand unaccustomed to the pen. That hand belong to a black man, a former slave. And he wrote personally to jefferson, to tell jefferson about a very important event in his life, namely his wife, now quoting from the letter had just presented me with a pair of twin boys, a pair of black twin boys. And sir, as a testimony of my gratitude, for those principles of justice and humanity, by you advanced advocated and come out of respect to which i hold you, to grant freedom in equal rights, the benefactor of mankind, and the people of color in particular, i have named one of my twins thomas, and the other jefferson. Thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] this is American History tv on cspan three, where each weekend we feature 48 hours of programs exploring our nations past. The ccm ban cspan cities tour expose the country. Since 2011, we have been to more than 200 communities across the nation. Like many americans, our staff is staying close to home due to the coronavirus. Next, i look at one of our cities tour visits. Today, we are on the campus of unc North Carolina at chapel hill. It is the First University in the country, a contest claim that we argue with the university of georgia about, and both have a good claims a good steak to the claim. They receive their first charter in 1785 and the unc charter came a few years later but had already opened and graduated a couple classes before the university of georgia. The university and city were founded at the same time