Tuesday Talk*: Goodbye, Thomas

John F.  Kennedy thought well enough of him to tell a collection of the “best and the brightest”:

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

And he did write words upon which we dearly cling.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But that was then and this is now.

But for the last two decades, some Black and Latino Council members, citing Jefferson’s history as a slaveholder, called for the statue to be banished — a push that gained significant momentum in the last year, as the nation has broadly reconsidered public monuments that can be viewed as symbols of systemic racism.

What began as the removal, if not the tearing down by mobs, of statues of Confederate generals has swiftly slip down the slope to a broad array of others, from Abraham Lincoln to abolitionist Col. Hans Christian Heg, because mobs aren’t always particularly knowledgeable about history. And now the statue of Thomas Jefferson will be removed from the City Hall chamber of the New York City Council.

“Jefferson embodies some of the most shameful parts of our country’s history,” Adrienne Adams, a councilwoman from Queens and co-chair of the caucus, said at the hearing.

And whether “embodies” is the right word, there is little question that Jefferson failed to conduct his life in a way that would be approved today. He was a slave owner. He raped his slave, Sally Hemings. Some may quibble over the details, but neither reflects conduct that can or should be ignored.

But does this mean that Jefferson should be “canceled,” his statue removed from the chamber despite the words he wrote that form the fundamental basis for a nation? Where is the tipping point? What good must a person do to not let other conduct, certainly horrible but hardly unusual for his times, be sufficient to not remove a statue from its place of honor?

The notion that statues “embody” historical wrongs began with the call to remove the statues of confederates, which raises long-held questions about why there were statues of them still standing after the War of Northern Aggression anyway. But the promises that it wouldn’t slide down the slope were quickly forgotten.

A statue of Dr. J. Marion Sims, considered a founder of modern gynecology, was removed in 2018 from Central Park at Fifth Avenue and 103rd Street because he perfected his procedures on unanesthetized enslaved women. After a tense competition, the city selected Vinnie Bagwell, a Black sculptor, to replace the statue with “Victory Beyond Sims,” a bronze angel holding a flame.

The Public Design Commission voted to remove the Theodore Roosevelt statue at the entrance of the American Museum of Natural History earlier this year and approved a long-term loan to an unnamed cultural institution, but no further plans have been announced.

The proposal is to move Jefferson’s statue to the New York Historical Society, the approval of which was delayed yesterday, which can well be argued is a more appropriate location for the statue, allowing greater context about the wrongs of Jefferson as well as the rights. But should it be moved? Some argue that it’s just a statue, so what’s the big deal, a disingenuous argument since it’s a sufficiently big deal to demand it be removed.

Is there any formerly “great” historical figure that would be sufficiently pure to withstand the scrutiny of today’s self-righteous reviewers? There is the irony that the people demanding these statues be gone fall a bit shy of contributing anything close to what Jefferson, Washington or Lincoln did for a nation, but their puniness aside, they are extremely good at tearing down others.

Is it worth it? Are the failings of great historical figures of such a magnitude that we should remove their statues? And if we remove the statues as “embodying” hate, will their words, ideas and the country they created and served be on the chopping block?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.

31 thoughts on “Tuesday Talk*: Goodbye, Thomas

  1. Richard

    Washington was a far more dastardly individual than Jefferson. Not only was Washington a slaveholder, he slaughtered many Native Americans when serving in the Virginia Militia. He was also fond of hanging Continental Army soldiers for the slightest hint of insubordination. When does the demolition of the Washington Monument commence?

  2. Pedantic Grammar Police

    “a bronze angel holding a flame”

    How long will it take for the mob to come after the angel? Angels, after all, are an embodiment of the patriarchy. Before long the only art allowed anywhere will be shapeless blobs of metal made by city council cronies who are called “artists” to justify the theft of taxpayer dollars.

    null

    1. Guitardave

      Don’t know what that clusterfuck is titled, but I know what it should be…

      “First Day with the New Press Brake”

      1. PseudonymousKid

        Is it fun mocking other people’s attempts at art? I like this. It’s better than a billboard. It reminds me of brutalist architecture in a way. I’ve been told I’m tasteless so discussing taste just might not be for me.

        1. L. Phillips

          It could always get worse. My first thought upon seeing the photo this morning was “DUI=DRT.” But the folds are much too neat and Dave nailed it.

          1. PseudonymousKid

            Duchamp made that point and better in 1917 by submitting a urinal as art. You’re 100 years too late if you were trying to say something interesting. Then, it isn’t your fault there is nothing new under the sun.

          2. L. Phillips

            Guilty as charged, KP. When the frau announces that we are driving to “a real city” (which takes four hours) so she can shop I drop her at the mall of choice and dig through the cutoff bins at two of my favorite metal sales/fab businesses. Heaven at half price, especially if I can find any chunks of 4150 steel to use in my business.

  3. Bruce Coulson

    Everyone has failings. Yes, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. So were a LOT of our early Presidents. So were quite a few less prominent peope in the South. And it was legal. And tolerated (if not approved of) by most people in the North. Acknowlegding the failings is fine; it provides a more balanced view of our past. Condemning people for ‘crimes’ that were perfectly legal at the time they were being committed (and being selective in your condemnation) distorts the past. This isn’t like the various Confederate statues that were put up years after the Civil War; this is deciding that no matter what these mens contribution were, their ‘crimes’ are sufficient to condemn them. Either we take down ALL of the statues, plaques, and state names; or we acknowledge that no one is perfect, and people can be praised for their accomplishments as well as condemned for their faults.

    1. tk

      How dare you post that here? Michael Jackson was a pedophile, even if he was never convicted and the people who accused him also said it never happened.

  4. Jake

    “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”
    Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

    In this context, it is important to draw a bright line between mobs tearing down statues and a democratic process to move a statue. Regardless of their motives, this was an exercise of democracy and if we honor Thomas Jefferson, and his words, and ideas, then it stands to reason we should honor this decision.

    As for whether there is “any formerly “great” historical figure that would be sufficiently pure” -I suspect the answer, which you know, is yes. For now. And then someday that will change, as all things do. And if, when that day comes, a democratic process is used to make another decision, we would do well to continue to applaud the ideas of the founding fathers in action.

    1. PseudonymousKid

      Do you agree with removing the statue or not? How would citizen Jake have voted? If you can’t tell I don’t really care about the process.

      Despite doing everything possible to not hold people sacred, I still have a place for Jefferson. I’m not voting to have even a stupid statue of him removed. That a majority voted to have a statue removed and a majority can vote it back into being doesn’t say much about the guy or what he stood for or why our forebears put a statue of him up in the first place.

      1. Jake

        While I highly doubt our beloved host cares what citizen Jake would do, my answer is complicated. Probably not as complicated as Thomas Jefferson was, but still.

        As you probably know, while owning 600 slaves, Jefferson also spoke against the international slave trade. Does this make him a hero or a zero? It signals he knew Slavery was evil, a century before it was abolished. But did it make him a hypocrite? Some evidence suggests (his proposal for gradual emancipation in 1779) he was concerned for the well-being of slaves if they were suddenly released from bondage. Then again, his land and property were a bulwark against increasing debts over his lifetime. Not a great look.

        My point is, even while judging Jefferson by the culture of his time, his position was difficult to defend. He knew slave ownership was immoral, yet he failed to do the right thing where personal interests were at stake.

        That said, in the light of the modern context, if it was my decision alone, I wouldn’t even make a motion to remove his statue. There are far more important things to do.

        However, there is a cause here that I not only want to support but expand. From an electoral perspective, in the name of progress, I believe it is critical for the descendants of displaced, enslaved, and otherwise exploited peoples to examine and dismantle the culture of the colonizers. You know, from the book club, opposition to that whole cultural hegemony thing.

        Therefore, if I was a member of NY City Council now and all the other circumstances were the same, yes, I would vote to remove in the name of solidarity.

        1. PseudonymousKid

          I refuse to subjugate myself to a cause I disagree with even if it comes from people whose ancestors my ancestors exploited. This is all a waste of time and serves only to get kneejerk reactions out of commenters feeling superior about the severe overreach of progressives. It would be better if someone could supply sufficient justification for moving statues around, but if there is, I haven’t seen it. I do try and read the academics behind this kind of stuff, but I find their analysis wanting.

          When I sing “solidarity forever” to close our meetings this isn’t what I mean. You’re being misled like a little lamb in a slaughterhouse. Maybe Lenin was right and a vanguard party is necessary to the revolution because you’re killing any hope I have that you’ll experience class consciousness on your own. Except that’s not a place I can lead you to, you have to find it on your own. If I lead you to it, someone else will lead you out.

          If it was my decision alone, I’d leave Jefferson and add statues of Debs and Marx even if only to giggle a bit because I don’t think either would necessarily enjoy being worshipped as such if they had a say. Is anyone deserving of a statue besides you, of course? How about Malcolm X? I like him a lot too even if he’s also “problematic”. Or should we just do away with idols all together?

          As for the Host, you’re at least on topic and you’ve read the post. We’re doing better than the commenter who posted such stupid shit I would have never guessed he actually went to law school and passed the bar, which was so embarrassing that I felt embarrassed for him. It’s TT anyway.

    2. David Meyer-Lindenberg

      Yes, Jake, the question wasn’t so much “is tearing down a monument to Jefferson democratically justifiable” as “what does this say about the society tearing it down.” To me, the conclusion seems inescapable that this society doesn’t, as you put it, honor Thomas Jefferson, his words, or his ideas. Which makes me feel a bit worried, frankly! since it’s nominally an American society, and the philosophical framework within which it’s complaining about Jefferson and arranging for his statue to be torn down is in large part Jefferson’s work. In fact, it’s work I would rely upon in arguing for a statue of Bismarck to be torn down in my home country. How does it make you feel?

      1. Jake

        “To me, the conclusion seems inescapable that this society doesn’t, as you put it, honor Thomas Jefferson, his words, or his ideas.”

        I’m afraid, David, on this we disagree. Like many, I believe you can distinguish between the art and the artist.

        And while I am a huge fan of Germany, and Prussians in particular, I’m not sure I would feel anything about Otto’s statue. I might be a little sad, for just a moment, if you threatened to tear down a statue of Friedrich der Große. I’ve heard he hosted excellent parties at Sanssouci.

        1. David Meyer-Lindenberg

          So when Ms. Adams said “Jefferson embodies some of the most shameful parts of our country’s history,” she was, uh, distinguishing? Cause that doesn’t exactly seem nuanced. Surgical. Like she thinks he did some good stuff, some bad stuff. She could’ve at least Gertruded a little: “Big fan of all that liberty shit. And representative government? Woo! But…”

          PS: We appreciate the love. And you get bonus points for the skillfully deployed eszett.

  5. abwman

    All of these cancellations make a mockery of history, because they pick and choose the “flavor de jour” for cancellation. Let us not forget that the first colony to “legalize” slavery was the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1641. (Virginia did not legalize slavery until 1661, 20 years after Massachusetts.) The first laws in North America legalizing slaves were part of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, recognized as law in December 1641, which also adopted some rights later included in the Bill of Rights. This occurred under the leadership of Governor John Winthrop, a slaveowner who participated in drafting provisions of the Body of Liberties. Harvard University’s Winthrop House — of which John F. Kennedy was an alumnus, among others — was named after Governor Winthrop and one of his descendants. Winthrop apparently has not yet been cancelled. And in 1750, slaves represented roughly 15% of the population of New York, which was a center for slave-trafficking, and legally enforced slavery at the time of the revolution. Finally, Alexander Hamilton is now recognized as a slaveowner, and recorded as owning slaves in the New York Slavery of Records Index from at least 1781 to 1800. His statue is prominently displayed in Central Park:
    null

  6. Erik H

    Who among us could withstand such a detailed inquiry into the minutia of our lives?

    Much less one using 20/20 hindsight; applying modern morality to older actions; and demanding virtually complete purity?

    Not Lincoln. Not RBG. Not Malcolm X. Not me.

    And not most of the folks pushing for retroactive cancellation, I reckon.

  7. tk

    Historians refer to this kind of thing as “presentism” — injecting current mores and values onto historical figures and events.

    Got to Mount Rushmore and look at the faces carved there, the faces of men who helped define the ideals of America: Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt. All of them are eligible for cancellation:
    — Washington owned slaves and killed native Americans. And while he refused a salary as president, he ran up $1 million in expenses. He loved the good life.
    — Lincoln was, by modern standards, a racist. He freed the slaves as a wartime tactic. On the plus side, he might have been gay.
    — Jefferson tried to abolish slavery in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, but was told that it was a non-starter. He banned the international slave trade when he was president, but didn’t free his own slaves. And even if historians believe that he had a real lifelong “relationship” with Sally Hemmings, an underage girl who was property can hardly give consent. Besides, she was his dead wife’s half sister.
    — Teddy Roosevelt helped America become a world power, essentially started the conservation movement, prosecuted corruption at the highest levels, and fought for workers’ rights. But he also was a war-monger and racist who dreamed of wiping out the native Americans and establishing worldwide American hegemony. He had his brother institutionalized to keep his shenanigans from smearing Teddy’s squeaky-clean image. He was a progressive by the standards of his day, and brought integrity back to the White House, but so what?

    All men have flaws (women, of course, don’t. They are simultaneously the most virtuous and courageous members of society and the unending victims of the normative patriarchy).

    Jefferson helped define the ideals of America. That has not changed simply because he, and we, have not lived up to those ideals.

    1. David

      Thank you for explaining that historians call this “presentism,” because we’re all fucking idiots who would never know about such serious academical stuff without you telling us. You’re very intelligent.

  8. Curtis

    My children went to a school formerly named Jefferson. I went to the website and things mentioned on the home page are equity, “dismantling institutional barriers”, vaccines, bullying, summer lunch program, safety, ADA, compliance, inclusion, connectedness and other buzz words. The principal “focuses on establishing positive relationships with students, staff, and families.”

    Education (“racial educational equity”) and learning (“equity work for learning”) are each mentioned once on the home page. To be fair, if you click enough links, you can actually find one paragraph about educational achievement.

    1. Rengit

      Jefferson was very serious about learning and classical education as the pursuit of excellence, being something of an autodidact, so it is fitting that the school also decided to jettison Jefferson’s understanding of what education is about.

  9. Richard Kopf

    SHG,

    With this I agree:

    “We can be forgiven if we interrogate Jefferson posthumously about slavery. It is not judging him by today’s standards to do so. Many people of his own time, taking Jefferson at his word and seeing him as the embodiment of the country’s highest ideals, appealed to him. When he evaded and rationalized, his admirers were frustrated and mystified; it felt like praying to a stone. The Virginia abolitionist Moncure Conway, noting Jefferson’s enduring reputation as a would-be emancipator, remarked scornfully, ‘Never did a man achieve more fame for what he did not do.’”

    Henry Wiencek, The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson, A new portrait of the founding father challenges the long-held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slaveholder, Smithsonian Magazine (October, 2012).

    All the best.

    Rich

  10. JRP

    Everyone has said the reasons I think most of this to be crazy.

    On a separate line, why do all these anti-Trump politicians keep giving him stuff to point to and say “see I was right”?

    1. Rengit

      “Don’t be crazy, what you’re fear-mongering about will never happen. And when it does happen, it will be a good thing and deserved.”

  11. rxc

    There are a number of major world religions and historical religious figures that do not/have not condemn(ed) slavery, and some still have teachings that include casting nonbelievers into slavery for their sins. Most of them have large numbers of structures/statues/art that celebrate important religious figures who have been “complicit” in historical bad behavior. I haven’t seen much discussion about them……..

Comments are closed.