[split from Ron Paul’s Legacy here]
My brain hurts when I think about Thomas Jefferson. One minute I think the guy is great because of some great quotes and literature, and then I find out he owned slaves and broke a bunch of treaties with Indians (violating their natural property rights, essentially). I’m not sure what to think of the man, but overall he seemed to be a tad on the hypocritical side…I guess he couldn’t have been as bad as Hamilton.
“My brain hurts when I think about Thomas Jefferson. One minute I think the guy is great because of some great quotes and literature, and then I find out he owned slaves and broke a bunch of treaties with Indians (violating their natural property rights, essentially). I’m not sure what to think of the man, but overall he seemed to be a tad on the hypocritical side…I guess he couldn’t have been as bad as Hamilton”
I think that just like there is a Cult of Lincoln, there is a Cult of Jefferson. The past, especially the revolutionary period, is so ridiculously overromanticized. Even here at the LvMi. People might not like to hear that but I feel it is true and feel the need to be honest about it. I think discussion needs to be started on it.
Well, in regards to a dualism concerning Jefferson, and as Molyneux himself says:
“Do not judge men of the past by the standards of today”.
Are doctors of the 13th century hypocrites for prescribing leeches because they more or less ‘knew’ it would cure the ailment—despite it not curing the ailment?
"Well, in regards to a dualism concerning Jefferson, and as Molyneux himself says:
“Do not judge men of the past by the standards of today”.
Are doctors of the 13th century hypocrites for prescribing leeches because they more or less ‘knew’ it would cure the ailment—despite it not curing the ailment?"
Right that is what historians call “presentism” but during Jefferson’s time there were individuals advocating freedom for slaves, equality for women and better treatment for the Indians. So it is not as if these are present day ideas that were not in the lexicon in the late 18th and early 19th century.
Yes, you are right, Spain had long since abandoned slavery by 1776 amongst others.
I wouldn’t deny Jefferson is a sort of hypocrite, however I also wouldn’t give a mile-high club prerequisite about people who claim he is a saint.
Then you are sensible and see that every individual has some good and some bad.
Would it have been considered political suicide by the populists to be an abolitionist in 1776?
Yeah. Nobody is perfect (although saying that about a guy who owned slaves is a little small-seeming). I mean, Gandhi slept with little girls. In a way, what the Founders did in their personal lives perfectly reflected the content of the Declaration of Independence in saying that no man is a saint, and no man should be worshipped. You can admire people, but EVERYONE is a human being, who does good and bad throughout their lives.
“Would it have been considered political suicide by the populists to be an abolitionist in 1776?”
Well it does not have to necesscarily be 1776. The Northwest Ordance of 1787 did prohibit slavery. The slave trade into the US stopped in 1808. So not really suicide to be anti-slavery. However, there is a difference between being anti-slavery and being an abolitionist. Being an abolitionist meant seeking some kind of equality between blacks and whites. You could be against slavery and not be an abolitionist. In fact that was why the “Free Soil Party” was formed. They wanted to stop slavery because it was taking away jobs and land from whites.
Andrew Cain - are there any revisionist accounts of the American Revolution that you recommend?
I’m wondering if he thinks Rothbard was a “cultist” who “romantacized” that period. His work would likely be one of the most recommended from folks of an Austro-libertarian persuasion, which one would have to assume means it would be considered quite “revisionist” from a mainstream perspective. Although I’m not sure what Cain would consider revisionist.
I’m also curious about Woods and Gutzman. Are they “cultists” too, Cain?
@JJ
In his first post, the one that is wildly off topic, he brought up the very subject that got the other thread started. He calls Jefferson a “disgusting hypocrite who created the idea of the Empire of Liberty” while going on about “verstehen” as if he practices it at all when speaking like that. He’s, again I think, provocateuring me. But, i think, even Rothbard gave Jefferson his due credit without knocking him for owning slaves during a period where it was en vogue. The vast minority were abolitionists and Jefferson never said anything about starting aggressive wars as the empire of liberty. This reminds me of a bad history book I read called Global Cold War by some Norwegian academic. He tried to relate Reaganism to Jefferson “Empire of Liberty” it was miserably cited as well. The Soviet treatment was much more…careful about political rhetoric.
I also the that he thinks that he is revisionist. Even though I found his views to be very mainstream in the other thread. He cites political rhetoric for politicians motivation (community college history major style).
Just my thoughts.
Does anyone have Ron Paul’s cell phone number?
Well I mainly ask since Albert Jay Nock, for example in Our Enemy The State, presents the motives for the revolution in a very different way to the mainstream (and primarily concerned with control of land):
“It is an odd fact that among the most eminent names of the period, almost the only ones unconnected with land-grabbing or land-jobbing, are those of the two great antagonists, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.”
He refers to the following secondary works (in addition to many primary ones):
Sakolski, The Great American Land Bubble
Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States
Nock, Jefferson
I admit I haven’t read any of them, nor have I read Conceived in Liberty (probably the only major work of Rothbard’s I havent’t gotten around to). I’ll try to check them out. Surely, however, someone else has written on this in the past century.
EDIT: According to the Wikipedia article on Beard’s work, since the 1960’s the mainstream historians have considered his interpretation baseless. This would perhaps suggest that he was onto something. It also refers to another work: Edling, Max M. A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the U.S. Constitution and the Making of the American State. (2003),
For the people talking about the Jefferson stuff, I created a new thread for that. It’s up.
The only one you mentioned I’ve read is Nock’s Jefferson. It is highly complimentary. Slavery is only mentioned in cursory ways and it focuses on his love of scientific inquiry (almost more than politics). Apparently Jefferson attempted to map the gulf winds across the U.S. and bought plants when in France to send back to certain parts of the U.S. in hopes that the recipients would plant them and they would seed the whole nation. His efforts were ignored; only the almond tree was actually done. Nock says in there that 55 of 65 of the Founders were, what we would consider today, bankers (he doesn’t refer to them all as bankers some were land speculators, etc.).
I feel like real historians attempt to get to know the people they study rather than pigeonhole them for moral flaws in attempts to make themselves feel enlightened, ahem.
“Andrew Cain - are there any revisionist accounts of the American Revolution that you recommend?”
Revisionist by what account?
"I’m wondering if he thinks Rothbard was a “cultist” who “romantacized” that period. His work would likely be one of the most recommended from folks of an Austro-libertarian persuasion, which one would have to assume means it would be considered quite “revisionist” from a mainstream perspective. Although I’m not sure what Cain would consider revisionist.
I’m also curious about Woods and Gutzman. Are they “cultists” too, Cain?"
No I do not think Rothbard was “cultist” about Jefferson. In fact I remember listening to a lecture by Rothbard in which he criticized Jefferson for coping out on his beliefs when he was in the office. He said something like Jefferson was nice but a Jeffersonian was better. If I can recall the exact lecture I will be sure to pass it along. I would not call Woods cultist either, merely more Whiggish in the sense that historians use it today. I personally think Woods overromanticizes revolutionary history to a degree but I think that is just because of my personal taste. I do not fall into the love-affair that many have with the “founding fathers” They were inciters of mobs and mob justice and when those mobs grew their own beliefs, they would violently oppress them. A revolution to get them into power and an army to keep them there.
"Well I mainly ask since Albert Jay Nock, for example in Our Enemy The State, presents the motives for the revolution in a very different way to the mainstream (and primarily concerned with control of land):
“It is an odd fact that among the most eminent names of the period, almost the only ones unconnected with land-grabbing or land-jobbing, are those of the two great antagonists, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.”
That is due to Charles Beard. He really rocked the foundations. I actually have Max Edling’s A Revolution in Favor of Government but I have not read it yet.
“In his first post, the one that is wildly off topic, he brought up the very subject that got the other thread started. He calls Jefferson a “disgusting hypocrite who created the idea of the Empire of Liberty” while going on about “verstehen” as if he practices it at all when speaking like that. He’s, again I think, provocateuring me. But, i think, even Rothbard gave Jefferson his due credit without knocking him for owning slaves during a period where it was en vogue. The vast minority were abolitionists and Jefferson never said anything about starting aggressive wars as the empire of liberty. This reminds me of a bad history book I read called Global Cold War by some Norwegian academic. He tried to relate Reaganism to Jefferson “Empire of Liberty” it was miserably cited as well. The Soviet treatment was much more…careful about political rhetoric.”
Well I see your ego has not deflated. Yes, I am secretly taunting you. Verstehen is the act of placing yourself within the mindset of the time. Not engaging in presentism. Not applying modern day values in a time which they do not believe. Rothbard actually makes a good example in trying to describe this, it would be like being mad at Aristotle for not knowing Mises’ theories on money. However, there were feminist, abolitionists and whatever you would consider the equvilent of such people for Native Americans. They were values around the time of Jefferson. Jefferson did not believe in them. Well, like I said before, he did not roll over Indian tribes like Jackson but as he stated in his own words, and you confirmed, he was not against using violence against them. Anyways, if we continue that then we should just take it back to that topic post.
Where was I? Oh yes, I’m provoking you..with every post I make to…other people… about my views on Jefferson. You have caught me sir!
By the way, did anyone know that an American subject paid less taxes under British rule then under the U.S. government?
What really peeved Americans was the fact that they were paying for British troops to protect them along the demarcation line, a line that they continually violated in their quest for new land. When I first heard that, it was somewhat jaw-dropping but really why should we be surprised?