These responses to reading in the scholarship on Jefferson's views on race and slavery were made after reading and commenting on the primary works, also as part of the miniseries prologue exercises. The respondents still had not started study of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy but knew generally what it was about, and some of the comments show strong opinions already starting to form.

1) Fawning at the feet of almighty Jefferson
I found it rather hard to believe that historians, especially the ones writing specifically on Jefferson's feelings towards slaves, could take such a dismissive and accepting stance in regards to truly vile, repugnant beliefs. The author I was to draw quotes from for instance, made only nominally critical observations against Thomas Jefferson's concept of blacks as an inferior race. Possibly worse even than that, when he did make mention of the Hemings family, he never mentioned Sally specifically and only spoke of the family as receiving preferential treatment because it was believed TJ's father-in-law had had an affair with Sally's mother. Even further, the "preferential treatment" to which this historian was referring was the fact that some had the luxury of being freed from the bonds of unpaid servitude. What a cushy life! I understand that these are historians doing the writing and thus that said writing should be in its very nature non-judgmental and unbiased; but the casual dismissal found in their work gives the reader the feeling that they would rather fawn at the feet of almighty Thomas Jefferson than mention that he might not have been quite the man most people think he was.
Eric Edgerton

2) Confused and somewhat contemptuous
I understand the desire to be diplomatic and unextreme, but I think if anyone is entitled have a strong stance on the matter of abolishing slavery, it should be the president. He shouldn't have been afraid of isolating others with his opinion if he was sincerely passionate about it. In this regard, I am somewhat skeptical and unimpressed with Jefferson when it comes to the matter of slavery. Another thing that keeps me from fully accepting Jefferson's "diplomatic" or "appropriate" stance on slavery is the extremely unignorable fact that he HELD slaves. Manumission was deemed legal when Jefferson was only middle-aged -- if he really abhorred slavery as much as he claimed, then there is no excuse for him to have kept any -- and especially almost ALL -- of his slaves for as long as he lived. This coupled with the evidence of his obvious racism and belief that emancipated slaves could not even remain in the US works to keep me from truly accepting Jefferson's allegedly earnest contempt for the institution of slavery. I'm not sure that there is actually any article, really, that could enable me to look past the obvious hypocrisy of him simultaneously holding slaves and claiming for the need for emancipation. I'm sure my image of "my Jefferson" will continue to evolve as the course continues -- especially in light of how rapidly it already has -- but as of now, I remain confused and somewhat contemptuous of TJ.
Mary O'Reilly

3) If slavery could magically vanish
I think Jefferson's sentiments have to be evaluated within the context of his own society and time. I think he was very racist and did not have much, if any, faith in the humanity of blacks, but that he knew that slavery was wrong on many grounds. I think Jefferson would have been happiest if slavery vanished magically, along with the slaves and blacks in general, so that tangible racial conflicts, instead of racial tensions, would never have happened or ever occur.
Lehigh University Student

4) Perhaps he just felt plain guilty
I still think Jefferson took some calculated risks, including the act of not acting, when it came to the issues of slavery. He was political in the way he approached it, carefully aware of who he talked to and swayed a little more for or against it depending upon who was at the receiving end of the dialogue. He fought for emancipation in the political arena as well, but only took it so far, reasoning that it was better left for a younger generation to solve. Though, he returned from his slavery stance hiatus when there was a legitimate chance to emancipate them to Africa, in which he calculated the financial costs for its entirety. But maybe he did this because this was the only way he felt it was possible for African Americans to get a clean slate and have a brand new, fresh opportunity to make something of their lives, to create a culture and an identity that was completely separate from the white hands that have scarred them unimaginably. Perhaps he just felt plain guilty, figuring there was no possible way for reconciliation, in the sense that white men would feel immense guilt by interacting in society with them everyday if they did stay in America. It would be a constant reminder of the hatred they produced and the country they founded, not nearly as moral as they would like to believe. There was an undeniable truth that African Americans held over the whites: they are full of shit. Even a truth-seeker like Jefferson wouldn't be able to escape that.
Kristen Dalton

5) Nothing more than a sweet talker
I believe that Jefferson benefited from enjoying the best of both worlds, and, while he was successful in his endeavors, he is nonetheless a hypocrite for it. He was doubtless a successful politician, writer, and President. His name remembered for his countless positive contributions, a testament to his skilled nature in his professional arena. However, the fact that he is remembered as being so skilled is a testament to the fact that he is also a morally bankrupt person, because that means he was so incredibly persuasive at work, while at home he could engage in activities he supposedly so vehemently opposed. The fact that Jefferson could be in a relationship with Sally Hemings for 38 years, have children with her, and yet still maintain that blacks are inferior to whites, that they should be sent back to Africa, and that Jefferson did not give her the freedom that she so deserved shows that he is nothing more than a sweet talker. He says and writes things that should be spoken and written, but they are baseless and unfounded; romanticized ideals concocted on the basis of dishonesty and hypocrisy. How, then, are his words even to be taken seriously? If the very writer of the Declaration of Independence did not practice its ideals, how are the nation's inhabitants supposed to live by it? Jefferson is essentially a skilled fiction writer, a morally bankrupt dreamer attempting to compensate for his own shortcomings, but nothing more.
Brian Cohen

6) The worst kind of white supremacist rhetoric
Before we started, I had not given much thought to Jefferson as a slave owner. The relationship with Sally Hemings seemed no longer to be in doubt in the popular imagination, so I was curious as to how the affair would be depicted. What I've found out so far is that TJ was just not the perfect specimen of founding fatherhood we imagine. He kept slavesâ€"lots of them. He was not particularly good to them. When he needed cash, he sold some. He freed very few in his lifetime and fewer in death, and always reluctantly. His writings on Blacks are at times insulting, disgusting, and the worst kind of white supremacist rhetoric, such as one might find on a Klan web site. He did write that he hated slavery, but it was more because he felt that it was degrading to whites than because he had sympathy for Blacks. He gained an anti-slavery reputation based on a few writings that may or may not reflect his true sentiments. He could not, ultimately, envision a United States that would include free Blacks on an equal footing with whites. And even if we want to partially excuse him for his failings in this area as a man of his times, a lot of other men of his times were much more in line with more current ideas and ideals. It's disillusioning, but he's actually becoming more real.
Stephen Molloy

7) Taking a NIMBY approach
Jefferson knew in his heart that the institution of slavery was reprehensible but he took a NIMBY approach to dealing with it; he wanted them freed but then subsequently shipped off to a place where they wouldn't be comingling with whites. The fact that he was against slavery did not however, mean that Thomas Jefferson was what one might term "progressive" in his outlook on blacks. He viewed them as smelly, ugly, unintelligent, and virtually without culture. What's worse is that he believed these perceived traits were in their very DNA rather than products of the horrendous environment they were forced to live in. How do I feel about his views? Quite simply they've made me reconsider everything I thought I knew about Thomas Jefferson. Historians tend to focus exclusively on the part where Jefferson believed that everyone had a moral soul and therefore should not be degraded through an institution as vile as slavery. Rarely is it pointed out that Jefferson possessed a Gobineau-esque belief that blacks were, by their very nature, inferior to whites in virtually every way imaginable. Thus I no longer believe that he was both an ingenious politician AND a good man, but merely the former.
Eric Edgerton

8) How could he have a relationship with a "different people"?
Obviously after just reading an essay that showed several pieces of evidence that Jefferson was not a racist, my previous views have been somewhat swayed. It seems that Jefferson did not free his slaves because he felt that freeing the slaves as a whole would result in an incredible war. His conclusion was to give them their own land: "Each nation had 'an Adam and Eve' who claimed the original, legitimate possession of its own 'country.' The greatest crime against the slaves was that they had been torn from their homeland, where their own Adam and Eve had founded the African nation-or race" (Onuf 11). I found this line to be remarkably powerful. Jefferson seems to really understand that in order for African Americans to ever be equal, they need to have a land that they can own and come to love. They need something to become passionate for. Otherwise, they will always be considered slaves and considered inferior. Previous to reading this essay I had never found a conclusion to why Jefferson continued to own slaves, despite his clear antislavery remarks. Onuf seemed to answer some questions for me. Despite being a little more clear about Jefferson's feelings toward slavery, I am torn about how it all relates to his relationship with Sally Hemings. Although he seems to believes slavery is wrong, he still seems to think that African Americans are a different "people." If this is the case, how could he have a relationship with a "different people"? In that respect I would have to say I am still confused. However, after reading this essay, I would definitely say that I see new reasoning behind some of Jefferson's actions.
Abigail Harris-Shea

9) Walked in circles around the issue
After completing all of these readings I really don't know what to think about Thomas Jefferson. I think he treated the slavery issue as a political one instead of a moral issue, meaning he walked in circles around the issue as to not have a firm position either way. On the other hand, I have to keep putting myself back in his time period because even though he wasn't Mr. Anti-slavery his ideas were revolutionary for the time. But the one thing I really will not understand is how he talks about the moral evils of slavery and is a slave owner himself. I think that is a perfect example of how weak his convictions were because if he truly believed what he was saying, his actions would have reflected them. Overall, I think Thomas Jefferson will always be known for writing the Declaration of Independence because everything else he did and said was mediocre.
Greg King

10) Slightly baffled
I feel that I have come to several definite conclusions after reading the primary and secondary sources. It appears to be clear that Jefferson was a racist in the manner that we define one today. His Notes on Virginia clearly state, in multiple different arguments, his beliefs in how blacks and whites are not racially equally. I have also concluded that Jefferson abhorred slavery. However, it is his reasons for wanting to emancipate the slaves, that leaves me slightly baffled. After reading Miller's "The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery," I started to better understand why Jefferson was anti-slavery. At first, I believed that he saw slavery of a human being as an unlawful act. However, Miller has brought to light that Jefferson may have seemed more concerned about the effects of slavery on the white race. "What about the blacks!?" you may ask. Well, Miller claims that Jefferson believed that the black race was fully capable of surviving slavery whereas the white race would suffer morally for enslaving other human beings: "His overriding concern was always with the free white citizenry, their psychology, their institution, and their morals. He believed that blacks could endure slavery and still emerge with their moral sense intact, whereas whites were utterly demoralized by the intoxicating sense of power it engendered" (Miller 41). If Jefferson was so concerned for his morals, then why would he have slaves? Jefferson was also concerned that the United States "stood in imminent danger of divine punishment" (Miller 45). Personally, this seems like another selfish reason for being against slavery. Miller brings to attention that Jefferson made clear in his book that such a vengeance would take the form in a slave revolt. "In that event, Jefferson said, whites could not expect to find God on their side; more probably God would be on the side of black freedom" (Miller 45).
Alexandra Neumann

11) He spoke a big game
I don't really know…I kind of don't like Jefferson after all of the readings and discussion that we have been having so far in the course. I feel like Jefferson didn't have a huge problem with slavery since it saved him money and allowed him to maintain a certain lifestyle. I also feel like he did have a problem with other races and saw them as inferior. It seems as though he spoke a big game and he was conflicted in regards to his views on slavery and racism, but I just don't necessarily feel that he acted enough against it as much as he enjoyed the perks of utilizing slavery and discrimination. It is sort of sad to be disillusioned by the truth that wasn't presented in more remedial history classes, but it also makes history that much more interesting.
Alexandra Horowitz

12) True scholars aren't so quick to praise him
It is easy to look, very perfunctorily, at his writing and other primary documents and think something like, "Wow, look at all the effort Jefferson put into the interest of slaves in America!" But as the scholars would have us know, this simply is not the case. It is more likely, because of the way he behaved and treated his own slaves, that he either couldn't reconcile the value he gained from them and the feeling of "negrophobia," as Finkleman puts it, with the knowledge that he was supporting a morally wrong and harmful institution. Though his many contributions will always be valuable to the growth of our country, it is important to realize that true scholars aren't so quick to praise him as the father of liberty, democracy, and emancipation that he is too often regarded as.
Lehigh University Student

13) Just generally uncertain
I feel as though my perception of Jefferson remains as complicated as ever after reading the variety of secondary sources. On the one hand, I feel I can understand why Jefferson approached the matter of slavery in the way that he did, but, on the other hand, there are still plenty of inconsistencies in his character that remain unanswered for me -- things I still can't wrap my head around. Whereas earlier I was kind of vaguely contemptuous of Jefferson and confident that he was generally a hypocrite and a racist, today I am neither certain of those facts nor unconvinced that they may still be true. I'm kind of just generally uncertain . . . which feels almost worse. The article I had to read outlined various efforts that Jefferson had made in his lifetime at abolishing slavery and justified his lack of more forthright action by pointing out how committed he was to a unintrusive federal government and the ability of each state to effect their own laws. I think it is definitely valuable to keep in mind that Jefferson was not the only person in government -- he had plenty of other people and plenty of other points of view to contend with on the matter of slavery. It's not as though he could have singlehandedly outlawed it with the wave of his hand. He did also make efforts at hindering slavery by, for example, banning the international slave trade in America. Plenty of his writings condemn the institution of slavery as a whole and seem to earnestly wish that it be abolished. But with that being said, it is hard to ignore the points made in the other articles. For as allegedly sincere he was about condemning slavery, I find he made a disappointingly meager attempt to actually encourage change in the US.
Mary O'Reilly

14) Sympathy for the lonely, introverted scholar
I think I've moved beyond the argument that he was just "a product of his time," but I cannot rid myself of the possibility. I don't know what direction I'd like to take that yet. However, I agree with McColley that Jefferson's denial of African Americans' intelligence and behavior is absurd and inhuman. That as it turns out is one of the justifications of even the most liberal of Virginians at the time: antislavery sentiment might have been present, but there were so many ramifications of publicly announcing these emotions that many refrained from it. What it boils down to is that these statesmen were "prevented" from exposing their antislavery sentiment for two main reasons: 1) Jefferson and many other statesmen were unwilling to lose their political influence that "outspoken opposition to slavery must have caused" (124) and 2) Jefferson "shared too many of the traditional southern ideas about the character of the Negro" (124). I sympathize with my lonely, introverted scholar because of his indecisiveness as a human being. We've made the argument that he is in fact human, but the fact that he was a president raises him to a higher standard. I'm still uncomfortable with that. It might be a cop out, but I need more discussion, and I need more time.
Stephanie DeLuca

15) A better understanding of why he was racist
I think at this point it has to be accepted that Jefferson is a racist. As uncomfortable as that thought is, there is incontrovertable proof that it is true. After reading my article tonight, I personally feel much more comfortable accepting the idea, or at least feel that I understand a little bit more why he was racist. The majority of the country, including most Northerners, are racist. Even though that's no excuse for Jefferson, it makes sense. It is very difficult to go against the beliefs of everyone around you, which I think heavily influenced Jefferson. Even though Jefferson proved he could stand up to others' beliefs, including the tyrannical rule of Britain over the U.S., that was an entirely different issue. Just as Jefferson believed the rule of the British was unfair, he believed the race of blacks to be inferior. He challenged the nation enough by calling for abolition. It was too much to ask or expect of his abilities to alter his racist mindset, as several of his friends and confidants attempted to do. While I am repulsed by all of Jefferson's racist writings and thoughts, I still have to admire him for his ability to write words that still inspire today, and his dedication to creating a unified America.
Katie Prosswimmer

16) The puzzlement that is Jefferson
Scholars and historians seem reluctant to judge Jefferson, and I have to admit, I am too. It is evident that we are all having difficulty grappling with the puzzlement that is Jefferson. He divides whites and slaves into distinct nations, recognizing that doing so makes them natural enemies. By abolishing slavery, the first law of nature, "self-preservation," would be broken. Jefferson, although desiring good for both slaves and slave-owners, recognizes that no nation wins in such a struggle. When I reread my paraphrase of Onuf's thoughts on Jefferson's writings, I cannot help but agree. I am trying to think of parallels today. While slavery is not the same as exploitation of illegal immigrants, I can't help but think that businessmen everywhere justify their actions in a very similar manner as Jefferson did.Are these thoughts completely out there? Am I trivializing the plight of the slaves?
Teresa Salvatore

17) Falling flat
I feel like at this point it is very hard not to see Jefferson as a racist. His primary texts were enough to convince me, but after reading Finkleman's article my belief is even stronger. It is difficult because, like we've said multiple times, history is completely subjective. Finkleman makes great points, and in my opinion it is difficult not to side with him. I like this article because in class we talked about how we need to think of Jefferson in the 18th century, not the 21st. The author makes the point clear that we cannot forgive Jefferson simply because he was a white man living in the South. He says, "We must compare him to his peers--the intellectual, political, and cultural leaders of his generation--and not to his neighbors" (186). I believe this is true. He had good influences around him, and he abolitionists influenced him. I'm not finding excuses for his theories, racist beliefs, or the fact that he only freed five of his slaves. Jefferson did great things, but helping to end slavery is not one of them. Some of his "peers" fought for the cause, but Jefferson definitely fell flat.
Elizabeth Guzzo

18) Why didn't he use his power?
I'm finding it difficult, at this point, to have a distinct idea about who "my Jefferson" is. I am conflicted because I know he was an influential and significant president, but in lieu of the material focusing on the tension between his abolitionary views and his blatant racism, it's hard to focus on anything else. However, it does really bother me that he did privately believe in emancipation and ultimately had the power to influence people in his position as president yet decided not to use this power. It makes me question how adamantly he was opposed to slavery, especially in light of his racist attitude of considering blacks inferior.
Samantha Feinberg

19) Disheartened by his racism
After reading the variety of articles I am convinced that Jefferson was strongly racist. I also see him more as a politician concerned with his reputation than a man who has genuine concern for the issue of emancipation. He would keep his writings and thought about emancipation very private and would decline to become a member of abolitionist groups because of fear of opposition from his followers. I understand the importance of maintaining voters, but if that prevented him from pursuing emancipation I think it shows that he didn't feel too strongly on the issue. My views on Jefferson have definitely become more negative. His passivity and concern with public opinion make me believe emancipation was more an experiment or research subject for Jefferson rather than an actual goal. I am disheartened by his racism because I think so many Americans view him with such high esteem.
Elaina Kelly

20) Lectured on bravery by Rosa Parks
So the scholars all agree with what we have generally been saying about Jefferson. The disconnect between thought and deed, morality and action, the public and private in Jefferson's life is ever-present. It is unfortunate to think that all of this is conveniently left out of our elementary education and initial idea of the founding father. All the scholars seem to contend that Jefferson was indeed conflicted between the maintanance of his own well-being as well as the idea that blacks are so inferior that he would not have them be free or equal in his country, with the moral knowledge that what he is doing is wrong in every way. I would imagine that he is up there somewhere kicking himself for having actually believed these ridiculous thoughts and is maybe even kickin' it with Martin Luther King, Jr. or perhaps getting lectured by Rosa Parks on what true bravery can achieve. I know this is a strange point, but it is clear that scholars and students alike need to continue to pursue a more in-depth knowledge than what the average person receives regarding our forefathers and what ideology and hypocrisy our country was actually founded upon.
Teresa Salvatore

21) Morally corrupted by the majority mindset
As for my opinions on Jefferson's views? I couldn't disagree more with his "scientific theory" of inferiority. I think that he was way too comfortable with his "living beyond his means" lifestyle and, as a result, could not even imagine living in a world where slaves weren't a commodity with which his lifestyle could be supported. To be honest, reading those passages from "Laws" or the references made in many of the secondary sources to his reasoning, made me thoroughly nauseous. Even he seemed to wish that he could rid his mind of these thoughts. Another thing that strikes me was his view that slavery would sort of "fix itself" over time. It seems odd that such an intelligent man wouldn't use his enormous potential for impact and act on these beliefs. I don't doubt for a single second that he wasn't a brilliant man and the creator of the most famous document in our history; however, I think he was morally corrupted by the majority mindset.
Samantha Christal

22) Good politician, not much of a leader or hero
After reading both primary and secondary sources regarding Jefferson's views on race and slavery, I feel like I finally have a comfortable background to work from. I still see Jefferson as a coward. Finkelman points out several times in his article that Jefferson had chances to act and simply didn't--whether this took the form of only freeing 8 of his 200 slaves or failing to work toward emancipation legislation when he had the opportunity. I keep thinking back to the idea of "delayed impact" and one quote from the Finkelman reading especially goes with this idea: "Jefferson told his correspondents to look to the future, wait for the next generation to take control, or hope that diffusion, population growth, or some other natural process would solve the problem" (187). My Jefferson is becoming increasingly passive, and though I think his ability to play both sides of the field does make him a good politician, it does not make him much of a leader or a revolutionary hero.
Kimbrilee Weber

23) Pretty much nonsense
The articles I've read seem to do a good job of contextualizing Jefferson's ideas and actions but not in ways that improve our view of him. It was pointed out more than once in my reading that one of the standard defenses of TJ with regard to slaveryâ€"that he abhorred the institution but was handcuffed by politics, circumstances, and the question of what would become of his slaves if freedâ€"is pretty much nonsense. It bothers me, I guess, because that was a defense I was going to as well. The news that other prominent citizens, including Washington and Franklin, freed their slaves with little or no apparent damage to their careers or dire consequences to their former slaves was a bit of a jolt. As much as I wanted to think that TJ must have been at the forefront of progressive thought on race for his time, the evidence of his writing and actions suggests that he was well behind. Finkelman goes so far as to suggest that for all his admirable qualities and accomplishments, the guy was just a racist. He hated Blacks, and the only thing that bothered him more that Black slavery was Black freedom. Judged even by standards of his own time, and his own best impulses, he falls far short of what we'd all prefer to think.
Stephen Molloy

24) So much contradiction
It seems that many of these scholars approach Jefferson with a certain level of contempt. They make sure to always circle back to the period in which he lived as an attempt to give Jefferson some sort of credit for the work he did and not place the blame entirely on him, and yet it is hard to not really dislike Jefferson after so much contradiction appears between both his writings and his actions as a key player in the development of the American nations. Something that really jumped out to me in Dain's book was a section wherein Jefferson basically said that blacks had suffered too much at the hands of the whites and hated whites too much to become citizens of the American nation. Basically to send them to another nation which would be their own, similar to the nation they were so violently taken away from to begin with? I mean it all seems a little ridiculous coming from the man who said "all men created equal" to basically believe that blacks would be unable to coexist within the American nation. I feel like many of the scholars want people to understand the ways in which history is altered and that this man who may have made great changes for our country did not act entirely in line with the beliefs that he is ultimately associated with.
Alexandra Horowitz