Agree with your post. Although I think you are making a different point. The personal lives of history-makers is certainly relevant to the various motivations of history makers. But we don’t need to know the personal history of George Washington to understand the importance of the Battle of Trenton. But this isn’t to say that George Washington’s life story isn’t important to those who want to study him.
My impression of Jefferson that he was a fierce critic of monarchial government and the whole notion of inherited authority. Thus his strict adherence to the written constitution. He even opposed the idea of implied powers which I believe is one of his shortcomings. On the other hand, he firmly believed in the power, goodness, and purpose of the new nation. When he assumed office, the United States consisted of colonies and terrify won by war. Jefferson’s vision was larger. Purchasing territory was not a common way to expand borders. Territory usually was acquired by colonization or war. Jefferson’s vision for an even greater United States took precedence over his suspicions of implied power. He was a visionary, but I dont think it’s fair to call him a hypocrite. .
Or the objective to see the truth and an accurate account of history. All men, even the founders, are far from perfect.
No one is taking away their achievements by acknowledging they weren’t perfect angels.
History is about events that create and develop history. Jefferson sleeping with a slave has no impact on history. The fact that historical figures weren’t perfect angles doesn’t mean anything either. The historians who think sex life affects the Declaration of Independence are weak irrelevant thinkers.
To understand the events, you have to understand the people, the culture, all the surrounding circumstances.
What even the most liberal of thinkers thought about and acted with his slaves is important context for how and why those men acted the way they did, how far they thought their ideas went, etc.
To understand the events, you have to understand the people, the culture, all the surrounding circumstances.
Dropping the atom bomb is a pretty significant event and understanding context and circumstances is vital to understand Truman’s decision. I know very little about Truman’s personal life, and what little I do know is irrelevant to my understanding of the reasons for using it. . I’ve read, studied, discussed, applied, and cited Marbury v. Madison. I understand the decision. I know nothing about Marshall’s personal life. When we studied it in law school, Marshall’s personal life wasn’t part of the discussion.
Matbe you need to know about Jefferson’s sex life in order to understand and interpret the Declaration. I don’t know why that is necessary. It isn’t relevant to me.
Dropping the atom bomb is a pretty significant event and understanding context and circumstances is vital to understand Truman’s decision. I know very little about Truman’s personal life, and what little I do know is irrelevant to my understanding of the reasons for using it. . I’ve read, studied, discussed, applied, and cited Marbury v. Madison. I understand the decision. I know nothing about Marshall’s personal life. When we studied it in law school, Marshall’s personal life wasn’t part of the discussion.
Matbe you need to know about Jefferson’s sex life in order to understand and interpret the Declaration. I don’t know why that is necessary. It isn’t relevant to me.
These are history classes, not prelaw. You are thinking like a lawyer, not a historian. Read history books, this type of information is always included.
But if you don't think it was important, why was Clinton's sex life important? MLK's, it has been brought up by a couple of people here? Was FDR in a wheelchair important? You still haven't answered Washington and the cherry tree, which was fiction and used.
People were, and are, complex. I think we do a disservice to our humanity to turn someone into a marble man. And yes, that is referencing the book on how we turned Lee into a marble man. Batman is a FAR more interesting character than Superman.
I’d argue an inability to recognize the importance of the Founders’ hypocrisy on slavery and race makes it difficult for one to understand a very important part of US history and why race still, to this day, is so important to our politics.
Now this is worth a discussion. I’d like to read your argument on this point. I think there are a myriad of factors about why race matters today. The fact that some founders owned slaves might have had some short term influence, but I think the important reasons race still matters is a product of much more recent factors than what the founders thought about it. Some of the recent factors are education. The Founders and slavery, the U.S. was founded on original sin, etc. is taught today as the root cause of race issues. I strongly disagree with that perspective. Because it is taught, it becomes reality. It’s a crowd brainwash.
Jefferson’s particular hypocrisy didn’t end at slavery—his stated desire for a very limited federal government and powers evaporated when he became Prez.
This is likewise an interesting topic worth exploring. Are you thinking Louisiana Purchase? Barbary Coast? What?
“The Founders and slavery, the U.S. was founded on original sin, etc. is taught today as the root cause of race issues.”
Could be a misread but you sound like someone who really wants to blame the other team for race issues and not slavery, the obvious culprit. Seems awfully convenient to think of this as only a recent problem, as if there were a time prior in US history when issues of race were squared away. I get it feels better to blame, say, teacher’s unions now than the heroes of the revolution and our founding. I don’t agree but I get it.
@bradstevens had a good idea for a tote bag design — Keep History Thorny. lol
Modern history, or postmodern history, if you want to call it that, is about understanding there are different, fragmented, often opposing, narratives. In this way Jefferson can be a hero, a genius, and iconoclast while also having been a generation or two behind the rest of the “enlightened” Western world when it came to slavery. He was a fervent idealist when it came to democracy, and his foreign policy exemplified that, but was a cruel realist re: slavery and we live with that legacy too.
History is messy. It’s about humans, so that’s what we get.
History is messy. It’s about humans, so that’s what we get.
I have seen a quote, something like, "if the history you read only fills you with pride, you aren't reading the right history."
History should fill you with pride at times, and make you ashamed at other times.
The one thing CO's point makes clear, all these other freedoms we so value were secondary to southerners. Freedom of religion, assembly, press, bare arms, trial by peers, et al, were secondary to keeping slaves. They were willing to leave all of that to a king and an English Parliament if they couldn't keep enslaving others.
The point isn't how the North had to concede the issue, the point is some racists demanded the issue be conceded to have a nation.
And I still think there is a debate on whether TJ was an abolitionist. I would argue he knew slavery would eventually go away and wanted to be seen by history on the right side. But not enough to free his own slaves. That was always an option that a few, and it was few, other slaveholders took advantage of. An abolitionist would have freed. Can anyone imagine Franklin holding slaves? Adams?
We could use more pride in the United States now and less shame. I’m ashamed of public officials who impute racial, or other motives to others who are acting in good faith. We have lost the ability to respect people with whom we disagree. I think a common dose of pride in America would mitigate much of the disrespect, but we cannot even come together on why America matters and is good.
There isn’t any difference. Knowing and understanding relevance and cause and effect is very important. Critical thinking applies to all disciplines.
Why did Ken Starr ask Clinton about Lewinsky? Did she change his mind on the issues of the day?
History is a study of the events of the past. That includes Clinton's, and Kennedy's, philandering. Making someone a marble man, like the south did with Lee, actually diminishes them.
I assure you if Ambrose wrote about Jefferson, he would mention it. It is how you get to know Jefferson. It isn't "God made an angel, named him Thomas Jefferson, and sent him to America." There is nothing wrong with seeing their humanity. Jefferson had major foibles and still did great things. FDR was in a wheelchair and still did great (and terrible) things. It is easy for Superman to be Superman, he isn't human. For those of us who are human, don't hide it.
Could be a misread but you sound like someone who really wants to blame the other team for race issues and not slavery, the obvious culprit.
Today’s race issues are not about slavery. Let that sink in. THEY ARE NOT ABOUT SLAVERY! Race issues are 100% the product of modern politics. No matter how much the media, education, and pundit class want to make racial tension about slavery, it isn’t. Politicians, especially the kind who aren’t smart enough to acquire a following through ideas and deeds, scream race at every opportunity. And they scream it in the context of every issue, be it highways, immigration, environment, criminal justice and on and on. Race issues are a self-perpetuating problem because certain people need to keep it a problem.
The Civil War, The Emancipation Proclamation, The 13th and 14th Amendments taken together are extinction-level events for slavery. The 14th, in effect, gave us a substantially different constitution, that pointed the way forward for the United States. Yet we all know prejudice and discrimination persisted. IMO, we had also made progress with that through various court decisions and laws. Progress stalled. Why? Not because of slavery, because of politics.
Charlottesville August 2017.
Understanding the Charlottesville history supports my point. The story begins at a small Virginia town, Appomattox Courthouse, in April 1865. General Grant relentlessly pursed General Lee’s rag-tag army through rural Virginia in the Spring of 1865. Grant cornered Lee at Appomattox. Lee’s army was starving and in no condition to put up a fight. Grant could have annihilated Lee’s army, but didn’t. Lee surrendered to Grant. After years of war, millions of deaths, and bitter fighting, Lee and Grant met in an atmosphere of great mutual respect. Lincoln perpetuated the respect with pardons and amnesty ( although Lee’s pardon is ambiguous). Lincoln was driven by binding the nations wounds and moving the United States forward as one nation. Then Lincoln was murdered. Notwithstanding all the post-war amendments and laws, binding the nations wounds was painstakingly slow. During this time the Virginians erected a statue honoring Lee in Charlottesville. Fast forward, to August 2017. Charlottesville city leaders decided to remove Lee ‘s statue, using words and language to condemn him that Grant never thought of using 150+ years earlier. There were two sides to that removal. Crazy racists showed up to protest and advance their racist agenda. Speaking of the removal of Lee’s statue, President Trump said there were good people on both sides.
Then politics took over. The Charlottesville hoax was born.
Biden said he chose to run for president because Trump called the white racists good people. You know the rest.
Here’s my point At Appomattox, General Grant and Lincoln showed Lee respect and understanding. Their objective was a unified American future not retribution for the past. That may have worked for a while. But while many in the country were working towards binding wounds and ending racism, others ere exploiting racism for political gain. Biden and others did that in 2016. Racial tension in 2025 is indeed a product of modern politics and the quest for power. Not slavery.
To understand the events, you have to understand the people, the culture, all the surrounding circumstances.
Dropping the atom bomb is a pretty significant event and understanding context and circumstances is vital to understand Truman’s decision. I know very little about Truman’s personal life, and what little I do know is irrelevant to my understanding of the reasons for using it. . I’ve read, studied, discussed, applied, and cited Marbury v. Madison. I understand the decision. I know nothing about Marshall’s personal life. When we studied it in law school, Marshall’s personal life wasn’t part of the discussion.
Matbe you need to know about Jefferson’s sex life in order to understand and interpret the Declaration. I don’t know why that is necessary. It isn’t relevant to me.
You're conflating legal interpretation with history.
Even constitutional scholars who believe orginalism to be the best interpretative method also understand the difference between what historians do and what lawyers do.
