MALTE HINRICHSEN JEFFERSONIAN RACISM JEFFERSONIAN RACISM Universität Hamburg Fakultät für Wirtschafts - und Sozialwissenschaften Dissertation Zur Erlangung der Würde eines Doktors der Wirtschafts - und Sozialwissenschaften »Dr. phil.« (gemäß der Promotionsordnung v o m 2 4 . A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 ) vorgelegt von Malte Hinrichsen aus Bremerhaven Hamburg, den 15. August 2016 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Wulf D. Hund Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Olaf Asbach Datum der Disputation: 16. Mai 2017 - CONTENTS - I. Introduction: Studying Jeffersonian Racism 1 II. The History of Jeffersonian Racism 25 1. ›Cushioned by Slavery‹ – Colonial Virginia 30 1.1 Jefferson and his Ancestors 32 1.2 Jefferson and his Early Life 45 2. ›Weaver of the National Tale‹ – Revolutionary America 61 2.1 Jefferson and the American Revolution 62 2.2 Jefferson and the Enlightenment 77 3. ›Rising Tide of Racism‹ – Early Republic 97 3.1 Jefferson and Rebellious Slaves 98 3.2 Jefferson and Westward Expansion 118 III. The Scope of Jeffersonian Racism 139 4. ›Race, Class, and Legal Status‹ – Jefferson and Slavery 149 4.1 Racism and the Slave Plantation 159 4.2 Racism and American Slavery 188 5. ›People plus Land‹ – Jefferson and the United States 211 5.1 Racism and Empire 218 5.2 Racism and National Identity 239 6. ›The Prevailing Perplexity‹ – Jefferson and Science 258 6.1 Racism and Nature 266 6.2 Racism and History 283 IV. Conclusion: Jeffersonian Racism and ›Presentism‹ 303 Acknowledgements 315 Bibliography 317 Appendix 357 I. Introduction: Studying Jeffersonian Racism »Off His Pedestal«, The Atlantic Monthly headlined in October 1996, illustrating the bold claim with a bust of Thomas Jefferson being hammered to the floor. »The sound you hear is the crashing of a reputation«, writes journalist Conor Cruise O’Brien in the corresponding article and asserts that the »radical and racist« Thom- as Jefferson is a »most unsuitable and embarrassing figure in the pantheon of the modern American civil religion« and a »patron saint far more suitable to white su- premacists«. In a »postracist society«, O’Brien holds, a »Jeffersonian liberal tradi- tion, which is already intellectually untenable, will become socially and politically untenable as well«. For the »multiracial version of the American civil religion« to prevail, he concludes, and in order to secure the »future of nonracial democracy, and of Enlightenment values generally«, the United States had to abandon the »neo- Jeffersonian racist schism« and basically drop the founding father altogether. 1 In 2015, as the white supremacist murders in Charleston and multiple cases of racist police violence fatally demonstrated that the United States was hardly a ›pos- tracist society‹, the author of its founding document was once again a matter of public debate. »Blame Jefferson for Ferguson«, one commentator provokingly sug- gested, since some policemen’s racist attitudes allegedly stood in the tradition of the founding father’s belief in the natural inferiority of ›blacks‹. 2 Other journalists and activists publicly considered taking down the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, as it supposedly celebrates an era of slavery and racism and therewith precludes the 1 Conor Cruise O’Brien, Thomas Jefferson. Radical and Racist, in: The Atlantic Monthly, 278, 1996, 4, pp. 53-74, here pp. 53 (›sound‹), 68 (›unsuitable‹, ›postracist‹), 72 (›liberal‹), 74 (›patron‹, ›multiracial‹, ›future‹, ›neo-Jeffersonian‹). For the critical reactions to this article, voiced by Merrill Peterson, Joyce Appleby and others, see The Atlantic Monthly, 279, 1997, 1, pp. 6 ff. 2 Caryl Rivers, Blame Jefferson for Ferguson?, in: The Detroit News, Apr. 1, 2015, http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2015/04/01/rivers-jefferson-ferguson/70738678/. [2] American society from effectively overcoming discrimination and prejudice. 3 Spurred by self-declared ›revelations‹ about his slaveholding, public discourse redis- covered Jefferson as the »Monster of Monticello«, whose liberal rhetoric was just a smokescreen obfuscating private despotism and political failure to act on the institu- tion of slavery. 4 Conor Cruise O’Brien was not the first and contemporary critics will not be the last to challenge the often times idolized and whitewashed image of Thomas Jeffer- son in American public memory. Especially with regard to ›race‹ and racism, how- ever, the last twenty years have witnessed an unprecedented polarization in the de- bate on Jefferson and his legacy. Building on scholarly spadework on Jefferson’s slaveholding and fueled by ongoing speculations about his sexual relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, which was eventually confirmed by DNA evidence in 1998, the Virginian founder was increasingly treated not only as the embodiment of the United States’ republican values, but also of its ›racial‹ tensions. 5 As the ques- tion of ›race‹ appeared to be the litmus test of American democracy, Jefferson was a natural object of investigation – so much so that at the turn of the millennium it was justifiably assessed »that our current absorption with Jefferson stems almost entirely from our preoccupations with matters of race«. 6 Corresponding to the divisive debates about questions of ›race‹ and identity in political discourses, critics and defenders alike have been very determined in their opposing judgements of Jefferson. It is thus with some academic frustration that 3 Cf. David Ng, Jefferson Memorial, Confederate statues enter national race debate, in: Los Angeles Times, Jun. 24, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-thomas- jefferson-confederate-statues-20150624-story.html; Nicolaus Mills, Blame Jefferson for the Confed- erate Flag, in: The Daily Beast, Jun. 26, 2015, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/28/blame-jefferson-for-the-confederate-flag.html. 4 Paul Finkelman, The Monster of Monticello, in: The New York Times, Nov. 30, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html?_r=0. 5 For the changing image of Jefferson in public memory, see Gordon S. Wood, The Trials and Trib- ulations of Thomas Jefferson, in: Peter S. Onuf (ed.), Jeffersonian Legacies, Charlottesville: Univer- sity Press of Virginia 1993, pp. 395-417; Joseph J. Ellis, Jefferson. Post-DNA, in: The William and Mary Quarterly, 57, 2000, 1, pp. 125-138; Peter Nicolaisen, Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings, and the Question of Race. An Ongoing Debate, in: Journal of American Studies, 37, 2003, 1, pp. 99-118; John B. Boles, Randal L. Hall, Introduction, in: John B. Boles, Randal L. Hall (eds.), Seeing Jeffer- son Anew. In His Time and Ours, Charlottesville etc.: University of Virginia Press 2010, pp. 1-11; Todd Estes, What We Think About When We Think About Thomas Jefferson, in: Oakland Jour- nal, 20, 2011, pp. 21-46. The earlier debates are revisited in Scot A. French, Edward L. Ayers, Jr., The Strange Career of Thomas Jefferson. Race and Slavery in American Memory, 1943-1993, in: Peter S. Onuf (ed.), Jeffersonian Legacies, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia 1993, pp. 418-456. 6 Jack Rakove, Our Jefferson, in: Jan Ellen Lewis, Peter S. Onuf (eds.), Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. History, Memory, and Civic Culture, Charlottesville etc.: University of Virginia Press 1999, pp. 210-235, here p. 227. Jeffersonian Racism - Introduction [3] Andrew Burstein complains about the polarization in respective discussions, which portray Jefferson as either »all racist or all liberator«. 7 »But judge Jefferson we must«, historian Jack Rakove describes the American urge to come to terms with the founding fathers, although pointing out that »judging the past […] is actually quite easy; explaining it is far more difficult«. 8 Concerning ›racial‹ issues, however, attempts to ›explain‹ the past are frequently guided by overriding political agendas. »Both sides want to pick and choose«, it has been noted, and »both groups have a stake in Jefferson« in so far as they render »Jefferson’s virtues America’s virtues and his flaws […] America’s flaws«. 9 The idolization of Jefferson as well as his critique have thus become a means to more generally express approval or opposition to con- temporary political developments, a tendency that frequently interferes with the standards of academic investigation. 10 As early as 1992, this problem of dealing with Jefferson from a perspective of late twentieth century ›racial‹ sensitivity was influentially addressed by Douglas Wilson, the later founding director of the International Center for Jefferson Studies. Sus- pecting that an overcompensation for the failures of previous historians replaced the »saga of the glories of the old West« with a »saga of exploitation and greed«, Wilson argues that Jefferson fell victim to this ›presentist‹ interpretation of history. »At a time like the present, when relations between the races are in the forefront of public discussion«, Jefferson’s reservations concerning African Americans tended to over- shadow his contributions to liberal and egalitarian thought, although they had to be qualified with regard to the historical contexts. Effectively, Wilson concludes, the »kind of racism« that Jefferson endorsed was inextricably linked to his colonial so- cialization and thus an inevitable accompaniment of eighteenth century life in America.11 Beyond these problematic assumptions and his one-sided approach to ›presentist‹ tendencies in Jefferson studies, Wilson’s critique hints at some important problems 7 Andrew Burstein, Jefferson’s Secrets. Death and Desire at Monticello, New York: Basic Books 2005, p. 124. 8 Rakove, Our Jefferson, p. 227. 9 Francis D. Cogliano, Thomas Jefferson. Reputation and Legacy, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press 2006, pp. 263 f. 10 This can be exemplified with David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies , which is prefaced by the prominent conservative spokesman Glenn Beck and promises to expose popular myths about the founder, in- cluding his endorsement of secularism, his racist attitudes towards African Americans and, of course, his paternity of Sally Hemings’ children. 11 Douglas L. Wilson, Thomas Jefferson and the Character Issue, in: The Atlantic Monthly, 270, 1992, 5, pp. 57-74, here pp.