(04-29-2014 09:04 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  This thread is so long, but I can't recall whether you've given an opinion on the difference, or lack thereof, between Lee and Jefferson, who was not a clearly not a Federalist. I ask not to argue, but rather because your views on things are always worthwhile.

Obviously there are some similarities. Both took an active role in higher education. Both professed an aversion to slavery while participating and profiting from it.

But times changed between the height of Jefferson's power and Lee's maturity, and they had different roles. Jefferson was a lawyer and a statesman; Lee was Army.

My sense is that Jefferson, despite his effectiveness as an advocate and his presidential authority, never had a viable opportunity to actually end slavery. The (not necessarily effective) import prohibition was probably as much as anyone could have done at the time. But by the 1860s the time had come. Lee's choice to fight for his state was, despite his intent, effectively a choice to perpetuate slavery. To me, that's the big difference. Jefferson failed to achieve emancipation, but he did not actively delay it.

Lee's life, aside from the slave-owning and the choosing the wrong side of the war, was, as far as I know, honorable and praiseworthy. But that brings to mind the saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" I think his successes in the Mexican-American War, at West Point, and at what is now Washington and Lee are overshadowed by his involvement in the Civil War.

Jefferson, of course, wrote the Declaration of Independence, inspired the Bill of Rights, and was a successful President.

In terms of what they did for (or to) the country, I see more differences than similarities.

(04-30-2014 03:43 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 09:04 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  This thread is so long, but I can't recall whether you've given an opinion on the difference, or lack thereof, between Lee and Jefferson, who was not a clearly not a Federalist. I ask not to argue, but rather because your views on things are always worthwhile.

Obviously there are some similarities. Both took an active role in higher education. Both professed an aversion to slavery while participating and profiting from it.

But times changed between the height of Jefferson's power and Lee's maturity, and they had different roles. Jefferson was a lawyer and a statesman; Lee was Army.

My sense is that Jefferson, despite his effectiveness as an advocate and his presidential authority, never had a viable opportunity to actually end slavery. The (not necessarily effective) import prohibition was probably as much as anyone could have done at the time. But by the 1860s the time had come. Lee's choice to fight for his state was, despite his intent, effectively a choice to perpetuate slavery. To me, that's the big difference. Jefferson failed to achieve emancipation, but he did not actively delay it.

Lee's life, aside from the slave-owning and the choosing the wrong side of the war, was, as far as I know, honorable and praiseworthy. But that brings to mind the saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" I think his successes in the Mexican-American War, at West Point, and at what is now Washington and Lee are overshadowed by his involvement in the Civil War.

Jefferson, of course, wrote the Declaration of Independence, inspired the Bill of Rights, and was a successful President.

In terms of what they did for (or to) the country, I see more differences than similarities.

All reasonable. My opinion is that Jefferson saw himself as a Virginian and strongly identified as such. He certainly wasn't Alexander Hamilton, and, whether because of slavery or other issues, my read is that he fell more on the side of states rights. Given where he owned property, and the above, I think it very probable he ends up in the CSA in the 1860's.

I tend to think that as a Renaissance man of sorts, and generally viewed as brilliant, he gets a pass on slavery from intellectuals. Not saying that's your position. I think there is a present day assumption that no 'brilliant' man would have decided their position based on loyalty to his state, but that's projecting today's sensibilities on the 19th century. His involvement with female slaves is probably not unique for that period of time, but far from praiseworthy.

Kind of like Bill Clinton gets a pass from people on his conduct toward women, that in this day and age are frowned upon in the workplace. He was a good president, is a Rhodes scholar and supports our views, so not so important.

Jefferson did a good talk and wrote well. The problem is that he did not act on what he wrote and said. He did not extend the created equal and rights that could not be taken away part to blacks (including his own slaves).

(04-30-2014 03:05 PM)75src Wrote:  Jefferson did a good talk...

Actually, he was not a good public speaker, and disliked doing it.

(04-30-2014 05:41 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  All reasonable. My opinion is that Jefferson saw himself as a Virginian and strongly identified as such. He certainly wasn't Alexander Hamilton, and, whether because of slavery or other issues, my read is that he fell more on the side of states rights. Given where he owned property, and the above, I think it very probable he ends up in the CSA in the 1860's.

A third possibility is that he would have persuaded Virginia not to secede in the first place.

He wasn't a military leader, so even if he had sided with the CSA, it's not completely obvious what his role would have been.

Quote:I tend to think that as a Renaissance man of sorts, and generally viewed as brilliant, he gets a pass on slavery from intellectuals. Not saying that's your position. I think there is a present day assumption that no 'brilliant' man would have decided their position based on loyalty to his state, but that's projecting today's sensibilities on the 19th century. His involvement with female slaves is probably not unique for that period of time, but far from praiseworthy.

I don't think he gets a pass on slavery. His status as a slaveowner, and some of his writings on race, are appalling. He could and should have freed his hundred-and-something slaves, and lived more modestly. It's a real blight on his otherwise spectacular legacy.

In the bigger picture, he did try to curb the slave trade, and I think the Declaration of Independence eventually served as something of a manifesto for the abolition movement.

(04-30-2014 05:09 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  ... I think the Declaration of Independence eventually served as something of a manifesto for the abolition movement.

Among other things. It is -- as its author intended it to be -- one of the most consequential documents in human history.