pynchon-l-digest V2 #2633

[Lord Inateur]

Word up, y'all. I haven't contributed to the p-list for awhile so don't 
freak on me if I make a fool of myself. So here goes: actually, Thomas 
Jefferson certainly DOES NOT pass the historical litmus test on the question 
of slavery. He's much worse than GW. Much worse. Washington (and Jay and 
several other signers of the D of I) at least freed his slaves upon his 
death and provided them with land and education. TJ, however, did nothing of 
the sort, except for the handful of slaves that were related to him. His 
slaves (in the hundreds if I recall right) were still paying off his massive 
debts 20 years after he died. Despite his love of homespun and other 
affectations designed to woo the common man, Jefferson lived the 
stereotypical arictocratic life--conspicuous consumption, living beyond his 
means, etc--thus explaining his debtor situation. Though he talked the talk, 
Jefferson was a piss poor combatant in the fight against slavery. Sure, he 
wanted to mention slavery in the D of I, but it was only to ridicule the 
king of england for allowing the peculiar institution to blossom in the new 
world. You'd think that if he was truly disturbed by slavery he'd at least 
free own his slaves and push for its gradual abolition at the state and / or 
federal level. But Jefferson did nothing to challenge slavery while governor 
of Va and as prez. In fact, he actually helped strengthen the slave code of 
Virginia. But this may have been due to political considerations rather than 
any fondness for slavery. All this can be read in a recent article by Paul 
Finkelman in William and Mary Quarterly (I can get the exact citation for 
anyone who's curious). His main argument is that presentist arguments over 
who did what on the issue of slavery are pretty much useless. However, when 
you compare Jefferson with his peers--e.g. Georgie Boy, John Jay, Poor 
Richard, and others--he comes up far short. Washington comes off looking 
like a saint in comparison. This is not to imply that GW was necessarily a 
benign slave-owner, but it does suggest that, when compared to other 
prominent men, GW was certainly more benevolent than a number of his peers. 
Except for Franklin, who definitely deserves to be praised for his steadfast 
struggle against slavery.


Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:02:22 -0400
From: Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: summing up Re: MDDM hist. refs re non-Intervention, W & G & 
Martha

...Ben and Tom pass the historical litmus test. George doesn't. The links 
that Doug provided this time are better support for Jbore's position than 
Doug's. Maybe Paul is correct, Doug seems to playing some sort of joke. I 
kinda admire that myself. Anyways, way back yonder Doug provided the links 
that show how Washington used his power to frustrate and limit the Quaker 
anti-slavery movement.

Ben Franklin (not sure he gets zapped by Pynchon either, just can't see
how the founding fathers are being dissed in this novel)  was
progressive on the slave questions early on, printing "abolitionist's"
books as early as 1729. By 1759 he was arguing that slavery should end
because it was stunting the growth of the economy. During the
revolutionary period, Franklin and Jefferson called for an end of
slavery. In 1784 Franklin became honorary president of the Society for
the Relief of Freed Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Franklin was
also the President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, and he
introduced a petition against slavery as delegate to the First
Constitutional Convention. Franklin's last public act before his death
was the publication of a parody defending himself and Quakers for their
positions on the slavery questions.


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx