Jefferson created what is called the Jefferson Bible[0], it is the story of new testament without any magic or superstition. It primarily consists of the words of Jesus and his moral teachings over his worldly actions. I think it's best to read Jefferson in a similar way. As a paragon of virtue Jefferson fails, but he has some wisdom to share on the nature and design of large scale human organizations. I don't think Jefferson would've wanted to look over the New York City Council anyway, he's probably much more at home in a library or museum.<p>[0]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible</a>
Jefferson more than just didn't live up to his ideals by owning slaves. His ideals themselves would be anathema today:<p><i>Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [negros] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.</i> -<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery</a><p>Rather conflicts with the narrative that the US was founded as a melting pot nation.
Judging people who lived in the distant past by modern standards is such an ignorant exercise of self-righteousness.<p>You are no better than Jefferson by virtue of opposing slavery in the modern day. You had the benefit of social norms that instructed you of its evils, and made it easy to denounce it.
Jefferson is a fascinating example of how contemporary historical revisionism is invoked in an extremely selective manner. Jefferson was a Francophile and was probably the founding father most closely aligned with continental European Enlightenment thinking. For example, he’s the source of the notion that the founding fathers were “deist.” Jefferson was, and maybe Franklin, but most of the others weren’t. He’s the main source for the notion of “wall of separation of church and state,” which is much closer to French secularism than what either the Constitution says or what the other founders likely intended. (At the time, several states had “established” churches, so the notion that the establishment clause required a wall of separation is quite odd: <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/264" rel="nofollow">https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte...</a>.) The Supreme Court ginned up the modern doctrine almost solely based on one of Jefferson’s letters. (To be fair, they properly understood what <i>Jefferson</i> meant.)<p>Today, there’s a lot of “guilt by association” attacks on various ideas Jefferson held. When critics attack Jefferson for being a slaveholder, they also attack notions like federalism or small government or gun rights as being conceived out of a desire to protect slavery. But they never attack his ideas of secularism, even though they could. Until the mid-20th century, “science” (or what passed for it at the time) was more aligned with things like slavery and eugenics. In the famous Cornerstone Speech, for example, the Vice President of the Confederacy declares the new rebel nation to be founded on the scientific truth that the races aren’t equal, and characterizes abolitionists as “zealots.” See: <a href="https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech" rel="nofollow">https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornersto...</a>. (Which they were—abolition among white Americans was driven mainly by Quakers and other religious fundamentalists. Lincoln’s Republican Party was a fusion of capitalists and religious nuts.)
This author needs to check their premise.<p>>>The question, though, is whether everyone implicated in slavery is ipso facto ineligible for public celebration. That standard doesn’t only exclude Jefferson but virtually every major figure in American history before 1861.<p>Yes. And why is that so bad? I'd rather live in a society that truthfully acknowledges its history rather than one that clings to a false hero myth.<p>>> That’s why attacks on Columbus Day are as misplaced as removal of the Jefferson statue. The holiday and memorials in many cities aren’t really about the Genoese explorer who served a Spanish king. They are confirmations of the presence of Italian-Americans in public life, to say nothing of the courage and adventuresome spirit that led to the discovery of the New World.<p>It's a darn big jump from Jefferson to Columbus. In fact, this paragraph feels like it reveals the author's real intentions - lead with Jefferson to create sympathy with the reader, then redirect to Columbus. As I've stated publicly in my own community (in which Italians were a significant early immigrant group) do you really want to be represented by such a monster? Even in his own lifetime he was charged criminally. Plenty of better ways to celebrate the contributions of Italian-Americans.
Statues are all about symbolism.<p>Invading soldiers removed the statue of the Iraqi leader:<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/toppling-saddam-hussein-statue-iraq-us-victory-myth" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/toppling-sadda...</a><p>The statues of communist heroes are removed by law in Ukraine.<p>Societies change and evolve with time, either endogenously or exogenously (they are invaded), and thus the symbols change. Todays hero is tomorrows zero.<p>Clearly Thomas Jefferson is anathema to enough people in New York City to be taken down. Among the reasons they cite is that he was a slaveowner. By that benchmark they will have to take down a lot of statues and rename a number of bridges and schools.<p>Eventually the fight will come to the pictures on cash currency.<p>-<p>The irony is this is published by Bari Weiss. She has a history of being a cancel culture advocate herself:<p><a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/" rel="nofollow">https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...</a><p>And using accusatory words and ad hominem that she does not herself know the meaning of:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/turncoatd/status/1268691071342501888" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/turncoatd/status/1268691071342501888</a>
"The question, though, is whether everyone implicated in slavery is ipso facto ineligible for public celebration."<p>The answer is yes. You can celebrate him privately. We can criticize publicly his incredible hypocrisy. Or just note that his document said men and everyone knows it meant white men, a dishonest omission.<p>No one is going to put up statues of Bari Weiss. Her "voice" is just outrage pushing.