Discussion UsefulNotes / ThomasJefferson

And regarding feminism, Jefferson was of course not as consistently pro-women's rights as Burr but he did have an influence there in how he supported Frances Wright and other early feminist activists.

Well these days Jefferson's name is mud among a lot of historians and a lot of people are revising their opinion of him. Pauline Maier the expert on the Declaration of Independence has called him highly overrated. I tend to agree with this assessment. That said I am not on board with Hamilton revisionism myself.

As for Jefferson and feminism...look saying Jefferson was sympathetic to hearing early feminist activisits is a kind of low bar. By that measure many people would qualify. And even Aaron Burr never really promoted a vote for women in his time at the New York Senate. There's a reason why women didn't get the vote until 1920...it was seen as fringe and about as popular and respectable as gay rights was until very recently.

I'm a historian myself and I can cite plenty who do not think he is "mud". Sean Wilentz, David Post, Holowchak, Gordon-Reed, Wood, Jan Ellen Lewis, and even Howard Zinn was somewhat of a fan despite criticizing Jefferson's relationship with slavery.

"Overrated" is an opinion and while some like Maier and Paul Finkelman hold such a position theirs is hardly the only one which should be included in the article.

I'm glad to hear you're not on board with Hamilton revisionism; even if we accept the premise from Hamilton's defenders that he was anti-slavery (which is far from clear), he still had plenty of deep, horrific flaws. I'd actually argue that his vision for the country was similar to that of Donald Trump... Certainly religious intolerance, xenophobia, and plutocracy are not quite the "meritocracy" Hamilton's defenders claim he advocated.

But that's beside the point. People will disagree about exactly how to describe Jefferson's character, so the article should mention these disagreements but also not take an active position either way. I feel I've edited the article to be at least somewhat more fair in that regard, although of course we should all be open to other ideas for the article.

As for feminism you are correct that really nobody of the Founding generation qualifies by our modern standards, but my point was that Jefferson did have an impact there, if small, which is more than can be said for most other Founders aside from Burr and Adams. But either way that's not so much an issue with the article.

What you said is true. Anyway, the original Thomas Jefferson article here was a lot longer and the people decided to cut it because it had nothing to do with how he is evoked fictionally. And they wanted more of a summary. These days, jefferson's views on slavery are considered to be crucial and tend to get more coverage The last big Hollywood movie on Jefferson...Jefferson in Paris...dealt with his affair with Sally Hemings.

You are quite right that a more objective view should be included of his achievements, but to make sure that editors don't cut out everything, it should be briefer.

The current view of Jefferson is greatly inspired by the Civil War discourse and Jefferson is seen as supplying a lot of the justifications that the South used to eventually secede from the Union...and personally, Jefferson indulged in shady stuff, like badmouthing Washington under an assumed name, trying to submit Aaron Burr to a show trial and other things.

Alexander Hamilton as anti-slavery just doesn't make sense to me. This guy was George Washington's right-hand man and Washington, despite his personal guilt and belated moderation, was no abolitionist. It is true that Hamilton's promotion of the North and central banking did eventually give them the advantage to abolish slavery and assert political and moral primacy over the South. But that's a really abstract argument. On a personal level, Hamilton was incredibly self-destructive and a deeply flawed individual which is kind of endearing, I can see that, but not something to glorify.

The only true abolitionism in this period was in France, where the Jacobins, under Robespierre, actually did abolish slavery...but they had to do it under the Reign of Terror since it was really radical.

I would say Aaron Burr was anti-slavery since he played a role in getting New York State to abolish it. If there is a founder I am sympathetic to, it would be Burr even if in terms of politics and institutions he didn't really have a great impact unlike Hamilton and Burr doesn't even have a page here...

Yes, his relationship with slavery and Sally Hemings is certainly important and that should be mentioned. He also used many of the same arguments as Abraham Lincoln did against slavery though. He influenced Lincoln, along with Henry Clay and numerous other abolitionists, especially among the free soilers, into active opposition to slavery. Jefferson may have owned slaves himself but politically he was hardly a friend of the institution.

I find the connection between him and the Confederacy made by many to be strange because the Founders of the CSA and even their intellectual forebears like John Calhoun completely and utterly denounced Jefferson's entire philosophy and body of work. The Kentucky Resolutions were mainly for denouncing the Alien and Sedition Acts and I personally draw a distinction between them and the later nullifiers and Confederates. Madison even explicitly disavowed Calhoun and the nullifiers during Jackson's presidency.

As for his shady stuff, I'd note that pretty much every politician of the time took part. There's some reason to believe Hamilton and Washington conspired with Gouverner Morris to get Thomas Paine guillotined by Robespierre for instance. Burr had plenty of his own shady dealings.

Anyway regardless, you're correct the article should be short. Is a few paragraphs too long, or should it be trimmed down more?

I find it strange Jefferson's support of the French Revolution is often left aside when it comes to discussions about slavery. He sincerely wanted Jacobin ideas to come to America, one of which was the abolition of slavery. For this reason Federalists like Hamilton accused him of fomenting slave revolt, which might've been another reason for his public refusal to acknowledge Haiti.

As for Burr, I think he is important enough to warrant an article

I think maybe one additional paragraph of extra detail is good. Like how he contributed to the development of the future Democrat party...which granted that the 19th Century democrats were incredibly evil in many ways... is still important. Contrary to President Washington's closing speech, I think having political parties is on the whole a good thing.

You should also I think amend by insisting that Jefferson in the context of his time was exceptional only in terms of the depths of his hypocrisy. And I think citing his influence on Lincoln and other abolitionists would be helpful.

I do think that on the whole the Founding Fathers, an incredible generation, tends to be overly glorified by both the Right and Left in terms of constantly claiming and reclaiming them. I think Richard Hofstader's consensus holds true. The disagreements and differences were not really crucial and that there were relatively little polarization on partisan lines, with the exception of the polarization of the personal relationship between Hamilton-Burr-Jefferson.

Even Thomas Paine cited as a hero today was actually really moderate in a lot of ways...and also incredibly short-sighted, that guy was friends with Napoleon and drew up invasion plans for that guy. And his adventures in The French Revolution can only be considered a series of (well-meaning) blunders on his part. Today, that guy's support of the French armies to invade and spread democracy abroad is presicent of neo-con misadventures more than anything.

You are right that there's a bit of Trump in Hamilton, except Hamilton wasn't scandal-proof, whereas Trump is.

Is my new edit good for the article?

It's good but I feel that the sentence you removed was crucial...abolishing the International Slave Trade did not halt or hinder the internal slave trade one bit. It's crucial to mention that America continued slavery and the slave trade after England shut it down on the waves and indeed continued till 1863. I mean readers often confuse the Slave Trade with slavery as an institution and it's important to keep nuance in my view.

Aside from that it's cool.