These responses to reading Jefferson's writings on race and slavery were made as part of the miniseries prologue exercises. The respondents had not started study of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy but knew generally what it was about. This selection, then, contains direct unmediated contact by students with primary sources related to Jefferson's views on race and slavery for the first time.

1) I now believe him to be a racist
These readings revealed a lot to me about how Jefferson viewed slaves and the African American race. Unlike previously, I now believe him to be a racist. In the "Laws" excerpt, he talks of African Americans as animals, citing specific physical differences between them and whites such as how they have less hair, urinate less, and sweat more. Going deeper, though, Jefferson actually separates them from whites by their mental and emotional capacities. He states that their reasoning skills and imagination are much inferior. And to prove that he's just not discounting all races besides whites, he immediately praises Indians for their creativity in sculpting artistic figurines essentially out of nothing. Turn to blacks, then, and he's quick to say that he has "never see[n] even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture" in black society. It really seems like Jefferson completely discredits slaves as having a culture. People, though, are meant to have culture. It's a basic part of society. Reading Jefferson's words, he doesn't ascribe that quality to them, so are they people to Jefferson? Most alarming is how he describes their ability to love. He says African American love is only "an eager desire" and "it kindles the senses only." He's reducing it to primal values. All the sentiment of actual love is taken out. What's left then? It's not love. Of course, what makes this interesting is how he could publicly state these accusations about the African American race, and then have a relationship with a black woman. Certainly this must be one reason why he kept it secret. My views on this whole situation are definitely changing.
Greg Jakes

2) Unwarranted optimism
I think that this new information gives us insight into another aspect of this historical question. I have spoken in past blogs about how I believed Jefferson was simply stuck in a time where slavery was the social norm and owning slaves was forced upon him. After these readings, I am disappointed to see that my optimism might have been unwarranted. Hearing someone whom I hold to such high esteem speak about a group of people this way is extremely disappointing and forces me to reconsider my previous statements. Look at Jefferson's chapter on the physical differences between blacks and whites. If someone was not racist, why would he write a chapter on something that would be so unimportant when judging another person? Some give Jefferson credit by saying he was surrounded by racism; I am still skeptical since he could have kept slaves but not held these types of extreme beliefs. I had a picture in my head of a President who was trapped in the reality of his time. Now, I am not so sure.
Caroline Nype

3) Comments incomprehensible from a scientist
I was very surprised by his discussion on the African Americans' ability to cope with emotional and moral issues as being non-existent and not nearly as mature as Whites. The fact that he points out in "Laws" that they have no culture because of their inability to create a distinctive artistic medium is just incomprehensible to me that a "scientist" like Jefferson would make this assumption. His assumption had to have been based on nothing or Jefferson had to be really uninformed about slaves and their own social interactions with one another.
Christopher Hall

4) No disdain in his words
It's easy to say that a dead man was a racist, especially if his name is Thomas Jefferson and he had a supposed love affair with a slave. At best, this scandal is gossip. And gossip just doesn't make any sense. This is like the ultimate game of telephone that has lasted centuries. Here's my thing: his creative genius is undeniable. His moral character, like all people, is always going to be questioned given a certain situation. Forgive me, but I'm not entirely seeing the outrage that everyone else seems to clearly see. Considering the times, his views in letters seem more like understandable observations, especially since slavery offers zero opportunity for African Americans to 1) have an identity 2) to have conversations 3) discover their passions and, thus, fulfill their individual potential as human beings, all of the very things we are criticizing Jefferson's lack of stance on. I sensed no disdain in his words, rather they sounded like careful thoughts. Consider the vulnerability in revealing that. The reader can interpret whatever they would like to from a given sentence. I'm surpised how quick we all were to say Racist! I mean, who knows? Really, who knows? I'll tell you what I know: I don't know.
Kristen Dalton

5) African Americans as laboratory specimens
The scientific aspect of Jefferson is definitely evident in his writings about slavery. He treats the subject as if African Americans are laboratory specimens being closely studied and evaluated. I agree he shows sympathy when speaking of their situation, and I thought the comparisons he made between blacks and whites were remarkable for that time period. He admitted the African American slaves had qualities that exceeded those of white Americans, especially when considering musical ability and talent. He delved into many different aspects of human life, including the capacitance for love and the tendency to stay awake at night. Thomas Jefferson was genuinely enthralled with the nature of slaves. It did strike me, however, that he tried reconciling the American way of holding slaves by citing the way slaves were handled in the ancient world. I felt that although he possessed sympathy and interest, the topic was still distant in the sense that slaves were recognized as property and the property of Americans was kept better than that of the Romans centuries before his time. I couldn't see the parallel.
Kristina Gonzalez

6) Not in a position to take a radical stance
The biggest struggle I have been having while trying to get a grasp on who Jefferson was and defining his relationship with Sally Hemings is putting it in perspective of the time period. We keep throwing around words like "hypocrite" and "racist" without understanding the full context of those accusations. Both of these ideas are much more common and applicable now than they were during Jefferson's time. The way he referred to blacks as "they" and often described them as inferior, while shocking and appalling to us, reading it from a post-emancipation standpoint, would not have been as offensive or out of line when Jefferson was writing it. I found that many of his assertions in "Laws" were radical in their giving credit to blacks as valued human beings. Rather than using the words "hypocrite" and "racist" to describe Jefferson, I believe that Jefferson was confused about his beliefs and how they fell into place in society. Jefferson sees emancipation on the horizon, he mentions this in several of his writings including "Manners," but he is very reluctant to take a direct stance on the issues and suggest immediate action. I definitely believe that part of him wanted to eliminate slavery. The issues arise as a result of the social class Jefferson was a member of, the people he associated with, and the common attitudes of the time period. Jefferson was merely not in a position to take a radical stance on an issue as deeply rooted in the country such as slavery. If he had, would he have had the same political success as he did? Would America have been as willing to let someone with such radical and extreme views reach such power? At the end of the day, while Jefferson was very intelligent and a valued leader, he was also a political, and as a politician he needed to keep those who gave him power happy.
Sarah Freeman

7) A humanitarian before his times
I was impressed mostly by Jefferson's letters in which he mentioned how important it was that the nation attempt to eradicate slavery, and, showing his intelligence, stated how impractical certain methods would be. Overall, I would commend him (at least from the evidence in these writings) as being a humanitarian before his times. The one thing that really got me about his letters, though, was the fact that he said in the "Fire Bell in the Night" that he would undertake any sacrifices to relieve slaves of their burden in a practicable way. The use of the word practicable is to be noted, but the fact that he said in the letter to Coles that he was too old to do anything and would sit on the side and hope sort of undermined his grandiose sacrifices line for me.
Chris McHugh

8) Would you, personally, have been "ahead of your time"?
I want very badly to believe that TJ was ahead of his time and could have had a loving relationship with a woman of color. After completing the readings I've become much more hesitant to give him credit for a loving relationship with Sally. HOWEVER . . . I am not so quick to judge him, or discredit him, for his racist ramblings. We have to remember the context that these letters are coming from. Now, I most certainly would have a few choice words about his moral compass -- but who is to say? Don't get me wrong -- his racism is nauseating, but is it nauseating because we have witnessed and become familiar with all of the progress we've made since then? That we finally know that it's very wrong? Would you, personally, have been "ahead of your time" and made those changes in perspective? A lot of us would like to think that . . . but I'm not entirely sure. Reverse it. What if we could go back and erase our memory of what it's like to live after emancipation? What if we lived before his presidency -- you cannot eliminate the possibility of belonging to a slave-owning family. ANYTHING is possible. It's a touchy subject and a perspective that I'm hoping comes across as intended. Who knows who we would have been? What we would have thought/believed in? We're taking a 21st century perspective to a 19th century issue.
Stephanie DeLuca

9) Incredibly far-sighted
After reading his writings, I am tempted to say that I feel sympathetic towards Jefferson. Although he is not portrayed as the perfect hero (as he is in Burns's documentary and on the Monticello website), whatever integrity was left in his character shines through in his words. He explicitly states that "the hour of emancipation is advancing, in the march of time. It will come," in his letter to Coles. This is reflected in Lincoln, his protegee of sorts, who eventually freed the slaves. This leads me to believe that Jefferson was incredibly far-sighted, and rightly so. He also displays incredible compassion, stating that they should not be abused or forced to do work that a freeman would not have to do. In his letter to Sparks, Jefferson also tries to compensate for "the long course of injuries we have been committing on [the African] population," an action that clearly demonstrates his integrity. His attempts to repay the damages that the slaves were dealt encouraged my opinions of Jefferson in that he was much more than simply a racist; he understood firsthand the problems associated with racism, and yet he was not unwilling but, instead, unable to create a true change because of the time period in which he lived.
Anna Robertson

10) I have to think twice before unfairly condemning him
I know I myself have been quick to judge TJ, but it's a good point that we cannot be so harsh to judge an issue we were far from present for. There is no way to gauge how we would have behaved in a comparable position, regardless of how strongly we feel about it now. I think this serves to only further complicate my impression of the situation -- I still feel an extreme amount of contempt for some of the things he says in these documents, but simultaneously feel I have to think twice before unfairly condemning him . . . .
Mary O'Reilly

11) Ahead of his time
I called Jefferson hypocritical in my last blog post. I now realize that I may have been jumping the gun while passing this judgment and now see him as a different character than was portrayed in the two resources for the last two blogs. I now realize and understand that Jefferson's thought was in fact far from hypocritical. Jefferson seemed to just be ahead of his time. He recognized that slavery was going to and needed to end; Jefferson wrote many pieces that indicate his thought on this. However, I do not believe that Jefferson truly wanted slavery to end. He was a rich plantation owner; pushing for the emancipation of slaves would have meant a huge change in life style for him. Perhaps the dilemma went as personal as the fact that Jefferson would not have been able to afford such a drastic change; he would have to free several hundred slaves as well as potentially paying for labor on his plantation.
Erin Wildeman

12) It is important to remember context
I agree that we shouldn't apply a 21st-century perspective to a 19th-century situation, but I do not agree that knowing that slavery is unjust is thinking "ahead of your time." It is important to remember context, and, granted, the times indicated that owning slaves was morally sound, but there were some who knew that the practice was inhumane. Aside from African Americans who were subjected to the harsh treatment, there were white men and women who viewed the institution as exploitative and evil. I don't consider them "ahead of their time," just simply aware of the dignity of African Americans. Now, it is easy to understand TJ's perspective on the so-called inferior memory, reason, and imagination of a black man considering his interactions with slaves. A master-slave relationship left little room for mutual dialogue; therefore, TJ's opinion on the intellect of African Americans makes some sense. Most likely he had few experiences in which a black man or woman conversed with him about something of importance. That does not mean that they were inferior, but it does help us understand TJ's writings a bit more. Where I struggle to grasp Jefferson's thoughts is when he writes about the physical characteristics of black women. Assuming Jeff-Hem happened, whether one believes that it was consensual or not, things just do not add up. In "Laws" he discusses the undesirability of African American women because of their inability to blush. Among other things, he expresses his disgust with their hair, their figure, and their odor. So, why then, whether forced or consensual, would Jefferson pursue a black woman for sexual gratification. The obvious answer is that to have relations with a slave would have been easy. However, if Jefferson really felt that way about the physical nature of black women, it seems unlikely that he would fall into a physical relationship with one.
Erica Prosser

13) There must have been something lovely about her
Why Sally Hemings? If we are to assume, and this may be unjustly so, but if we are to assume that Thomas Jefferson was the hot commodity of his time, say, like the Brad Pitt of the political arena, it might also be safe to say that he could have relations with anybody he wanted to. So even so, regardless of race and regardless that she was his slave, why Sally Hemings? There must have been something, dare I say, lovely about her. And we all know love is something you simply cannot explain.
Kristen Dalton

14) His actions speak louder than his words
After reading Jefferson's documents, the one that struck me the most was his will. There is absolutely no mention of Sally Hemings. I have tried to justify the reasons that he might have taken into account in excluding her. Perhaps he was not only protecting himself -- after all, what would giving more evidence to the fact that he had an affair with his slave do to his reputation by including her in his will -- but protecting her, as well -- surely, she would be the subject of interrogation on his behalf should the matter be pursued if attention were to be drawn to her in his will. However, if Jefferson was truly the man of honor that we are so quick to assume he is by both his legacy and his accomplishments in office, there is no reason that such honor should not be extended to the woman with whom he shared so much of himself. It is not only insulting, but a testament to the ignominious and fickle sense of character that he truly employed. Perhaps a decent argument could be made as to why Sally was not mentioned, but on his death bed? To not grant her the freedom that she deserves? And especially when granting others -- her own family members -- their freedom, to exclude her serves more of an insult to her than a showing of respect to them. We might maintain that Jefferson was a noble, honorable man who did so much good for this country. But I believe that he was simply good at his job. That is not to say that his performance was by any degree a reflection of his character. At the end of the day, his actions speak louder than his words -- literally. He should have freed Sally Hemings in his will, and the fact that he did not is simply inexcusable.
Brian Cohen

15) Blame the times
I believe that it can be seen through Jefferson's writings that he saw something in the slaves that allowed him to view them not as equal to whites but somewhere beyond just a slave. It seems as though Jefferson used slaves on his land because it was the only way he would be able to afford his lifestyle. Slave labor was obviously common, and although Jefferson was against it, he was unable or unwilling to give up the life he was so accustomed to in order to grant slaves their freedom. At the end of the day some may call Jefferson a hypocrite, but you can't totally discount the times that he lived in.
Alexandra Horowitz

16) Almost a fraud
I was actually pretty disappointed with TJ: his racism could not be more apparent throughout these sources, and his views remained, overtime, unchanged. I've been skeptical about TJ's character, because you have to lead by example, which he clearly did not do. As I was reading through these writings of his, I started looking at Jefferson almost as a fraud. Better yet, a politician. I'm not sure I can look at him as philosopher when his "opinions" and lifestyle are so out of whack--or are they even really that incongruent? Though he implies emancipation is necessary and inevitable, he explicitly says (numerous times) that blacks are inferior in basically every faculty, including appearance, and that if emancipation were to happen, they should essentially all be deported back to Africa. Perhaps he was an abolitionist, but of what moral standing? He seems more like someone who didn't necessarily think blacks deserved the same rights as whites, so why should they be freed?
Samantha Feinberg

17) Mind blowing
Jefferson's writings took me by surprise. I think this is because I have his words "that all men are created equal" engrained in my head. So, to read these documents where he goes on in great detail about the inferiority of the black race and their ineptitude in most facets of life was mind blowing for me. I've always known Jefferson had slaves, which reflects some hypocrisy there, but I never knew the extent to which he viewed their incompetence so innate. What he said about this in the "Laws" was extraordinary, that "the improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life." So, he believes that the mixture of the blacks and whites enhances the black race, but he apparently fears this because he wants the blacks exported back to their country of origin once they are emancipated.
Greg King

18) His contradictions confuse me
After reading all of these sources, Jefferson seems to be a hypocrite because he sometimes spoke negatively about slaves, yet at the same time, some of his writings make it seem as though he is no different than any other slaveholder of his time. His contradictions confuse me as to what he truly believes--whether he believes slavery is wrong and feels as though he needs to keep slaves and pretend as though they are necessary in order to fit in or that he believes in slavery and outwardly lies when he says he's anti-slavery. Jefferson seems to go back and forth with the issue of slavery, so much that I don't think any one will ever truly know whether or not he is actually pro-slavery or anti-slavery. It almost makes me wonder, did he do that on purpose? Maybe with this issue, Jefferson used his intelligence to his advantage, in that he tried to give both sides something they wanted to hear so that he could stay in power, or maybe he was truly conflicted with what he believed in.
Samantha Gerstein

19) Disgustingly fascinating
I found all of these writings disgustingly fascinating, but I was particularly disgusted (and fascinated) by his Bill Concerning Slaves, and that the incidence of a woman having a child by a black man was punishable (and had pretty extreme consequences for all involved), but there was nothing about what would happen in the (surely more common) situation of a white man fathering children with a black woman . . . Is this a hint of his own "guilt," leaving a giant loophole that conveniently says nothing about his own situation? More generally, the contradiction between his understanding of slaves' humanity and his lack of understanding of their humanity is astounding. He talks about the terribleness of the British king for entering Africa and exploiting its people and then talks about the "differences" in physique, intellect, personality, humanity, and basic needs between white and black people. I find the dichotomy incredible. It seems like Jefferson cares about slaves and understands the injustice and inhumane conditions that white people subject them to and yet that he doesn't necessarily care about the slaves he personally owns. The farm book says that Jefferson's slaves were probably happy under his ownership (disgusting), but the various bills and public writings, and especially the letters and other private matters, seem to emphasize slaves' inferiority.
Stephen Molloy

20) Lost respect for Jefferson
When I first began reading these passages, I began to have questions like whether or not Jefferson truly believed what he was saying, if his writings were a ploy to gain emancipation support from southerners, or if it was a half-hearted attempt to save himself. After finishing the "Laws" and "Morals" section, I had to admit to myself that Thomas Jefferson was racist. As much as I hated to think that a man of his intelligence and reasoning would have such a backward mindset on the black population, it became clear as I read through each section that this was the only explanation. The thing that was most shocking to me was that Jefferson's idea of emancipation was about as far as possible from the definition I think most of the class was thinking. For Jefferson, emancipation meant constructing a plan that would "humanely" export all of the blacks from America by educating them in different trades so they could support themselves in whatever country they were shipped to, only to have their missing numbers replaced by white settlers brought in from other countries. The constant references to the purification of the white races and prevention of "mixture" erased any doubts I had of Jefferson's racism. After reading his letter to Coles that fully outlined the exact measures needed to execute the "extinction of that species of labour & substitution of another," I truly lost respect for Jefferson.
Katie Prosswimmer

21) Bullshit
I do not think Jefferson is capable of being ignorant. I do not think he could write the varied and opposing things he wrote and not be able to sit at home at night and be conflicted about it. I believe the historian in Burns's video was right, "He knew what he was saying." I believe a part of him was saying to himself, "This is what's best for everyone" and was rationalizing things. And I think another part of him was saying back, "Bullshit."
Greg King

22) Just another black slave
I'm also struggling with the fact that Sally was 7/8 white. I think that despite the fact that this does provide some kind of a justification for Jefferson's actions, we are still left at odds with what he says and what he does. I am thinking particularily about the writings from "Laws" where Jefferson spends so much time degrading the physical appearance of blacks. I would think someone with this sort of an attitude would have a huge issue with a relationship with a black woman, even if she was only 1/8 black. For someone of this mindset, one drop is enough. I'm still trying to reconcile the issue in my mind, because there is good probability that some sort of a relationship did occur. I'm just not sure if it is correct to make any sort of link between the fact that Sally was 7/8 white and that she was Jefferson's chosen mate. To me, Jefferson saw Sally as just another black slave.
Kimbrilee Weber

23) I no longer believe
I no longer believe it to be possible for Jefferson to have a completely mutual, caring relationship with a black person. He would not have considered them to be on a level capable of such a thing. I do not believe the man capable, however, of having a relationship like this without emotions involved. I'm getting the feeling that this was a much more complicated, twisted, emotional experience than I was allowing for previously.
Greg King

24) Two different things
I mean, you could say that Jefferson is mysterious, but I think that is just compensating for the fact that he is a blatant hypocrite. Jefferson is a man of power, and he is good at his job. In front of a budding country, why not preach equality? Yes, he was around hundreds of years ago, but I truly believe that the perception of power, even then, has its effects. Yet judging by his actual actions regarding slaves and Sally, what he wrote and who he was are two different things.
Brian Cohen

25) Now doubting Jefferson's genius
Reading through "Laws" I found myself wondering how, if this description of blacks represents Jefferson's true beliefs toward their mental faculties, he could still want them to be freed. He describes slaves as ugly, smelly, without the capacity to reason, and prone to animal-like idleness. If the description TJ gives in "Laws" of blacks was in reality accurate, they would have been a doomed race. Yet this is far from the primary rationale he gives for keeping them in a state of involuntary servitude. Instead, he focuses on the impossibility for blacks and whites to play-nice after the history of abuse present in the relationship. This reasoning rings hollow. The animosity he describes would surely be present but so too was the means for beginning to allay said animosity. Why could they not have freed the slaves and then made an attempt at reparations by granting each former slave a sizeable parcel of America's virtually boundless land? Of course true reparations could never be made for such crimes against a race as had been committed in the US, but that doesn't change the fact that TJ fails to look past the original issue of black/white hatred. This selection of readings, vastly more so than any affair he might have had with Hemings, gives me cause to doubt the genius I'd always assumed he possessed. Such assumptions of racial superiority and indefatigable ire between the races are usually found in the writings of such "scholars" as Gobineau and Huntington, men whom I have forever despised and never respected. It is therefore startling to hear the same type of bunk being espoused by a man I always assumed to be wise and just.
Eric Edgerton

26) A laundry list of negative stereotypes
I was extremely taken aback when reading "Laws." In addition to feeling contempt and disgust in seeing what Jefferson had to say about the African-American race, I feel as though I was almost just simply confused. It seemed as though it was starting out with an explanation as to why was it important that slaves "should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniuesses" and later "to declare them a free and independent people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength." Initially, my impressions were positive -- thinking that the purpose of "Laws" would be to advocate not only the freedom of African-Americans but also to encourage an investment in their well-being and a commitment to helping them. Instead, however, it takes this disastrous turn for the worst when Jefferson then begins rattling off a laundry list of negative stereotypes about African-Americans. I was hoping he was maybe intending to list and then discount these opinions, but unfortunately that was very much not the case. In considering this confusing dualism in Jefferson's approach towards African-Americans, I arrived at what I found to be an important clarification for myself -- one that I tend to often forget. I realized that being racist and being an abolitionist were by no means mutually exclusive character traits at this time.
Mary O'Reilly

27) Jefferson died unhappy
"We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go" describes the nature of the issue of emancipation. I think Jefferson believed that slavery was morally wrong, but emancipation would be unsafe and lead to rebellion. He believes that to declare the slaves independent and to free people would divide the country into parties due to prejudices. Jefferson believed that blacks were equal to whites, but he believed there were many differences between the two races. Jefferson believes the institution of slavery consisted of submissive slaves versus despotism. During this time, it was socially acceptable to own slaves due to habit. As Jefferson says, "Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him." Once again, slavery did not seem morally wrong to some because it was common to own slaves. Jefferson hoped for the people of the country to treat the misfortunate slaves as best as they can until more can be done for them. Jefferson speaks of his hope of the "slave rising from the dust." He hoped for emancipation to be granted by consent of the masters, rather than by rebellion and chaos. He figured that eventually after a series of events, slavery would come to an end. Regarding the Missouri Question to have non-slave holding states in the South and slave-holding states in the North. Jefferson believes this does not accomplish any moral values for the country since the institution of slavery will still exist regardless. He believes that the slaves should be diffused throughout the country so that they have a brighter future of emancipation. He argues that the one positive effect of the Missouri Compromise was that it would ingrain the idea to plan for emancipation in the people's minds. He said "the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passion of their sons." I believe that he was unhappy to die without knowing for a fact that slavery would be abolished, but he hoped for it to occur in the near future. Jefferson believes in a plan to establish a colony in Africa where the slaves would be free and finally get what they deserve after all the years of hardships. These articles made me realize that Jefferson truly wanted emancipation and that he knew it would come soon, but not exactly the way it would.
Jenna Goldenberg

28) I am glad we have this documented
Jefferson seems to feel upset and regretful that the slaves have been put in the predicament they find themselves in. He acknowledges the atrocity but goes on to propose some very unexpected solutions to the problem. Citing the anger black people will obviously have and the idea that the two races will forever be at blows, he suggests we provide them all transportation back from whence they came. This is logical, because even today we still see a racial schism, though it is not one that is tearing the country apart. The ignorance and intolerance of the age is revealed shortly thereafter, when Jefferson attempts to explain the physical and moral differences. He clearly has no idea why skin pigment is different or any idea of "racial difference." He seems to suggest that blacks are animalistic, citing "animal heat" and a "strong, disagreeable odor." Well, yeah, Tommy, you force them to work in the hot sun doing your work all day, and they may tend to sweat more than the average lazy white man. And, yeah, they may have different ideas of religion or spirituality, but this doesn't occur, even to a man as "smart" as Jefferson. Instead, they are a godless race, ripe with "want of forethought." They don't make love but, instead, engage in something more raw and animalistic. He even goes as far as to call whites a race of "superior beauty," suggesting that we breed animals based on this, so why not humans? This extreme ignorance is terrible and embarrassing. It is so bad that it is almost humorous to read today. How does it not occur to him that what he is saying is ludicrous? The only logical thing he writes is that there are differences and that they will be of the upmost importance in the near future. Everything else is based on judgmental and ignorant observations not characteristic of somebody like him. Not to mention he is (possibly) guilty of being as attracted to their women as anybody. All I can say is I am glad we have this documented so that we can see how bad discrimination and intolerance once were.
Stephen Molloy

29) The common thought of the time
Jefferson suggested that African Americans be shipped away to separate the races because the extreme perceived differences between them would be too much to allow them to live together harmoniously. Jefferson feels there are insurmountable differences between the two races. They were like different species almost in Jefferson's mind. But I still have the same thoughts I did as earlier. Jefferson may have made some horrible errors in his thinking and actions, but that doesn't make any of the differences he made in the country any less important. While he may have erroneously stated that African Americans and European Americans would live together divided until it ended "in the extermination of the one or the other race," he did realize that extreme prejudices did exist and that there would be a problem in the two races living together as free men. He realized that a lot of these were based on appearance. In other writings, such as the Declaration of Independence, he does not let his prejudices show through or even give the people any idea as to whom he meant the Declaration of Independence to apply. Jefferson may have taken the same prejudiced opinion as those he was surrounded by, but it was just that, it was the common thought of the time, that whites were superior. He was primed by every experience he had gone through and every image he saw to think that way. Maybe hundreds of years from now, everyone will look back on the homophobic people and think about them the same way as everyone now thinks of the racists back then.
Brandi Klotz

30) "My Jefferson" increasingly complicated
After considering the readings and our other discussions of Jefferson, I find "my Jefferson" to be getting increasingly complicated. I am still stuck with this struggle of trying to save his reputation and trying to somehow make him out to be a good guy, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to me not to see Jefferson as a coward. His opinions on slaves we read in these excerpts seem especially cowardice, and the fact that he probably had a secretive relationship with Sally is also cowardice. He could not even free his own slave children (if we believe Sally's children are his) until after he was dead and would not have to deal with the repercussions. Jefferson's reputation is somewhat salvaged by the fact that he does admit that slavery is wrong and that emancipation is eventual, but the fact that he didn't even attempt to make this happen in his lifetime and tried to save himself (arguably) by appearing "God-fearing" just adds weight to the fact that he was a coward. He knew right from wrong and could not bring himself to stand up for right. Was some of this a product of the times? Yes. But, for me, it still does not make Jefferson any more of a man. I'm now struggling to connect this vision of Jefferson with my original vision of the noble leader and President, writer of the Declaration of Independence. Maybe there is some middle ground. For Jefferson's sake, I hope so.
Kimbrilee Weber

31) Where's the moral standard?
I do not think that Jefferson appreciates the slaves as human beings. If he did, he would not be talking about them as part of a list of considerations and instead realize that there is a moral standard that is more important than deciding whether emancipation is practical.
Brian Levy

32) A troubled intellectual
Thomas Jefferson embodied what I consider the "troubled intellectual"; perhaps a "troubled intellectual" is the only kind of intellectual that exists. The misery experienced when contemplating the paradoxes of life is analogous to breathing. Intellectuals need the itch and burn that social injustice, social immorality, and social inconsistency create. More questions become the salve of choice, but, because a salve is only a palliative measure, the questions keep coming. Questions raised about any issue we can consider prime fodder for the pursuit of truth preoccupy existence. Of course, we are discussing Thomas Jefferson. He is listed in the social injustice "Journal of Medicine" as one of our first documented cases of social injustice, the Frankenstein attempting to fix a weakness inherent in our humanity (and look what happened to him). In Jefferson's letter to William Short, he refers to slavery as "a hideous blot." Ok, I can agree with that. However, as his letter continues, so does his seeming confusion. He refers to the slave's "heteromorph peculiarities." What word choice! A word of Greek origin, heteromorphy is described as "deviating from the normal, perfect, or mature form." I am scratching while contemplating Jefferson's inference that slaves were not quite as "perfect" as whites. Where's my salve? Jefferson further comments that slaves have a "physical compulsion to action." Does he mean that they must be kept busy? When he states that this "compulsion" "constrains the free laborer to work equally hard," can one infer that he means it is unlikely to get better work from paid, laborers, thus making it difficult to free slaves? This stance is analogous to the ongoing conundrum of illegal immigrants and alien laborers. A transplanted New Yorker, I am awed at the immigrant-laden vans carrying laborers home from the vineyards on the North shore and the farms on the South shore on Long Island. It is especially striking because the land owners who employ these people can certainly afford to pay better wages with benefits to local citizens. Unfortunately, these barons complain that members of the local community are "unwilling" to work hard. Restaurant owners in NYC complain that tax-paying citizens don't apply for dishwasher positions. Who, then, shall we hire? Who shall do the work? Might we say the same for Jefferson?
Teresa Salvatore

33) Internal conflict
Jefferson's writings indicate the internal conflict he has with the issue of slavery and that he realizes there is no immediate solution to the problem. He is right in saying that, since it took all the way up to the 1960s for both races to be equal by law. Jefferson illustrates multiple ways of gradually ending slavery in his "Laws" document and others, showing that this issue weighed heavily on his mind. Obviously, he can't seem to find the right answer since the pros and cons are so extreme and close together. In his famous letter to Holmes, the "fire bell in the night" he is talking about is the Missouri Compromise and how if put into effect, it would separate the country into slave and non-slave territories. The fact that he refers to it as a "fire bell in the night" demonstrates his belief that such a decision could have serious consequences for the country. He claims, "I can say, with conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way." The emphasis here is on the word "practicable." He is unable to find a practicable way to end the problem of slavery. He may not consider them to be equals, but he is looking for ways to put an end to slavery in a way that would benefit both parties.
Keiko Akamine

34) Supporting racial hegemony
What I found even more interesting was that his Bill concerning the slaves where the freedom of a child was contingent on the status of the mother. "No persona shall be slaves within this common wealth except those who already were on the first day of this assembly and the descendants of the females…" For years and years everything, especially property, followed the line of the father. It is so interesting that when dealing with race and freedom, it isn't the case. But duh! Why wouldn't it be this way? Because now, White slave men have full access to exploit and rape their female slaves for as long as they'd like, and keep having slaves because of the children, and meanwhile, according to section V, where "any white woman should have a child by a negro or mulatto, she and her child shall depart the common wealth within one year," the slave-holding men can reinforce their white superiority and, thus, keep full control based on race because no white woman could ever have a mulatto child who would essentially be free. Never knew Jefferson would be in support of such racial hegemony.
Maxine McCoy