Hypocrisy of Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, has often been accused of racism and double standards. Jefferson paradoxically emphasized the concept of personal liberty but acted contrary to his own writings. In the famous Declaration of Independence, Jefferson advocated for fairness and equality but a bulk of evidence showed that he was in support of slavery and racial discrimination against Blacks. He continued to own slaves and engage in slave trade even after his very own declaration, which was widely thought to have marked the beginning of the Enlightenment Period. Unlike his contemporaries who released (freed) their slaves during the Enlightenment Period, Jefferson held on to his; and literally used his influence to undermine any efforts aimed at ending slave ownership. Jefferson considered Black Americans, whether free or slaves, 'pests' and even pushed for the enactment of a law that would make them outlaws.

A number of Jefferson's supporters have, however, argued that since the Declaration had a total of 56 signatories; it did not quite represent Jefferson's personal view. In this regard, Jefferson was not bound by the same, and therefore, his actions vis-a-vis the declaration in question does not provide a sound base for hypocrisy.

Introduction

Hypocrisy, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, refers to "behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel." This text reviews a number of instances in which Jefferson is thought to have acted contrary to what he had made people believe through the Declaration of Independence; and in the end gives a verdict as to whether or not Thomas Jefferson was indeed a hypocrite.

Research Question: Was Thomas Jefferson really a hypocrite?

Discussion

This section outlines the significant issues that respond to the research question. It gives an in-depth examination into the controversial issues surrounding Jefferson's beliefs and views. The Declaration of Independence, to which Jefferson was co-author, provided the framework that would govern the interactions between American citizens of different races, in the years that followed. The hypocrisy accusations are leveled against Jefferson years after the declaration, when he apparently changes his earlier view, and adopts a pro-slavery stand. He documents this new stand in a collection entitled Notes in the State of Virginia. One way of determining whether or not he has been rightly accused would be; conducting an "inquiry into whether Jefferson's later stands were consistent with the universal principles" outlined in his very declaration (Richardson 449).

Slavery

Jefferson is thought to have given his lifetime support for slavery. In as much as his Declaration of Independence managed to change others' views, it had no effect on his. Indeed, he attached a significant degree of importance to slavery. If anything, his "image in America would be almost perfect, were it not for slavery" (Finkelman 194). Jefferson was a slave owner his entire life, and released only an insignificant number of his slaves, even in the post-declaration period (Finkelman 194). This was contrary to his writings, which portrayed slavery as an inhuman act (Gordon-Reed and Takagi 108). Besides, Jefferson may not have been the best of masters. He is said to have at times used his slaves as wedding gifts, or put them on the frontline during war, so that they had higher chances of death (Gordon-Reed and Takagi 108). This he did, because he considered Blacks anomalous, tasteless, dull, and of low thinking capacity (Magnis 494).

Jefferson's supporters have constantly held that it would be wrong to use modern principles of justice as a basis for judgment; since Jefferson's controversial actions took place in the 18th century, and the mode of thinking was different then (Finkelman 196). A second argument by Jefferson's proponents is that he simply acted out of care. In their view, since blacks were unproductive, unable to make logical decisions, and simply dependent on the Whites, then there was no need to free them. The slaves were actually better off as that -- slaves; as they were kept busy, and made more productive.

The Blacks Dependency on the Whites

Jefferson, in his script, Notes in the State of Virginia, undermines the ability of Blacks and alludes to the fact that they are at a lower level than the Whites and cannot match up to them (Magnis 496). In his view, Blacks were simply born to be slaves, and to serve the Whites. Jefferson compares African to Roman slaves. In his view, in as much as both were slaves, the Romans gave rise to scientists, artists, etc. (Magnis 497). The African slaves could not achieve a thing; and the logic was obvious; "the...

In summary, the Blacks are inferior to, and can never match up to the Whites (Wood 39).
A number of questions have, however, been raised in this regard. If black slaves were literally 'useless' like Jefferson portrays them to be; then why was it so difficult for him to free them (Gordon-Reed and Takagi 109)? And again, why did a high-ranking individual like him get involved with these 'not-so-useful' slaves (Wood 40)? Jefferson creates an image that demeans Black people, portraying them as inferior and lacking of intelligence. He is against any kind of equal interactions between Blacks and Whites, yet he went against his writings, "took products of amalgamation and made them favored members of his household" (Gordon-Reed and Takagi 109). Additionally, Jefferson is said to have maintained close relationships with a number of Black families. Moreover, he allowed one such family access to a Charlottesville school meant for White children -- another instance of the disconnect of sorts between his behavior and beliefs (Gordon-Reed and Takagi 109).

The Louisiana Acquisition

The Louisiana Acquisition can be considered one of Jefferson's most significant achievements (Conlin 203). However, in as much as this may be this case, the fact that the purchase was against both the Constitution and Jefferson's personal beliefs cannot be overlooked (Balleck 679). Jefferson had made people believe in his support for states' rights and constitutional construction (Balleck 679). The Louisiana Purchase, however, went against both principles. First, it was an infringement on the rights of France as an independent state. Secondly, the whole affair was unconstitutional. Jefferson and his proponents maintained that Republicanism is highly concerned about the citizens' welfare. They held that, the purchase, though unconstitutional, "was necessary in order to grasp an opportunity that provided for the long-term security of Republicanism" (Balleck 680).

Jefferson's proponents additionally argued that most people would have done the same, when faced with a similar situation. This argument has, however, been highly criticized on the basis of the simple principle that 'two wrongs do not constitute a right'; just because most people would have done the same, doesn't make it right (Conlin 203). The critics hold that, whichever way you look it, the bottom-line is that Jefferson acted contrary to both what he had made people believe and the constitution (Conlin 203). He neglected his prerogative as U.S. President and acted in a partisan manner (Tatalovich and Engeman 220).

The National Bank Controversy

The controversy surrounding the development of a national bank began during John Adam's administration (Vile 498). It was during this period that France and the U.S. enmity became so intense that the two nations almost went to war. The confidence the public had in the Adam administration began to dwindle (Vile 498). The influence of the Democratic-Republican Party, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, was significantly growing; a factor that John Adam's government did not take positively (Vile 498). Restrictive legislation, in the form of the Sedition and Alien Acts was put in place.

In order to prevent a crisis, the government considered the idea of forming a national bank, which would ensure an extension of its powers. Despite the fact that the idea was of significant national interest, Jefferson, and his party objected to it because it was unconstitutional (Onuf 187). It was this objection that made people accuse Jefferson of double standards and hypocrisy later on, when he made the Louisiana Acquisition under similar circumstances (Onuf 187).

A Critique of Jefferson's Proponents' Argument

Jefferson's proponents have defended him on two major grounds. First, they argue that a significant number of people were party to the declaration in question, and that it therefore should not be taken to represent Jefferson's view. My take, however, is that since Jefferson was one of the parties involved, then his views ought to have been presented therein as well. He is, therefore, bound by the declaration as much as every other party that was involved is. After all, if all the other parties argued in a similar way, then no one would be bound, and the whole declaration would lose meaning.

Secondly, there are those who argue that modern principles should not be used in judging Jefferson's actions. In my view, the principles that govern justice, fairness, and ethics today are the very same ones that were in place in the 18th century -- they are timeless. The requirements of justice and the concepts of fairness have remained more or less the same,…