******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/ Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-rev...@lists.h-net.org> > Date: May 13, 2020 at 5:00:02 PM EDT > To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > Cc: H-Net Staff <revh...@mail.h-net.org> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Slavery]: Strauch on Boles, 'Jefferson: Architect > of American Liberty' and Riley, 'Slavery and the Democratic Conscience: > Political Life in Jeffersonian America' > Reply-To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > > John B. Boles. Jefferson: Architect of American Liberty. New York > Basic Books, 2017. 640 pp. $35.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-465-09468-4. > > Padraig Riley. Slavery and the Democratic Conscience: Political Life > in Jeffersonian America. Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania > Press, 2016. 328 pp. $47.50 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8122-4749-7. > > Reviewed by Tara Strauch (Centre College) > Published on H-Slavery (May, 2020) > Commissioned by David M. Prior > > Despite the vast scholarship on Jefferson and Jeffersonian ideology, > historians struggle to understand Jefferson while often assuming that > his political followers and challengers had less complicated ideas > about race and slavery. In that sense, John Boles's _Jefferson: > Architect of American Liberty_ and Padraig Riley's _Slavery and the > Democratic Conscience; Political Life in Jeffersonian America _make > an interesting comparison. For both Riley and Boles, Jefferson had a > cohesive idea of liberty built around his personal beliefs about > slavery. Boles's biography of Jefferson examines him as a stateman > devoted to creating a government based on that idea of liberty while > Riley's monograph follows Jefferson's political vision compared to > those of his followers. > > Both authors believe that antebellum white Americans knew slavery to > be absolutely immoral. Boles assumes that Jefferson wanted to end > slavery; he states that in his younger years Jefferson "dared not > attack the institution [of slavery] head on" but that he continually > thought about legislation that would move Virginia and the nation > toward abolition (p. 28). Riley assumes that white northern > Jeffersonians accepted slavery as a moral wrong and thus "present a > very different intellectual problem from that posed by a slaveholder > who believed in universal human freedom yet could not free his > slaves" (p. 2). In their political calculations, however, federal > happiness was more important than arguments about slavery. Riley's > conclusion sits uneasily next to Boles's biography. "In many > respects," Riley observes, "the outcome of Jeffersonian democracy, > whether one deems it logical or not, was an egalitarian community of > white men who protected their own interests by accommodating slavery; > doing so required, as southerners made clear, an investment in white > supremacy" (p. 251). The Jefferson Boles describes would have been > both saddened and unsurprised by this conclusion. > > Boles's biography is well written and constructed; this biography is > largely about Jefferson's public life and Jefferson's political > contributions are central to the narrative. At times, it is not even > Jefferson himself but his legal writing that takes center stage. > Boles's analysis of Jefferson's prose is informative and points to > Jefferson's crucial role in the creation of the American republic. > Jefferson's early years are described in a concise but interesting > manner that emphasizes his tenuous hold on Virginian aristocracy. As > he is drawn into the politics of the British colonies, we see > Jefferson balancing his desire to shape Virginia along with his > desire to participate in the new political life of the Continental > Congress. > > Even as Jefferson moves to France, Boles describes him as having a > clear and consistent vision of what the American government could and > should become. Like other biographers, Boles credits Jefferson's time > in France with sharpening his love of country and republican > government. His stay in France also further cements his deep-seated > fear of monarchy. After his return to America and his installation in > Washington's cabinet, Boles turns to the complicated personal > politics of the federal government in the 1790s. Here, Jefferson > appears as a skilled and accomplished politician whose egalitarian > vision of America is constantly challenged by high Federalists and > partisan politics. > > Boles credits John Adams's fraught presidency with creating > Jefferson's views on that office and sees Jefferson's own terms, at > least the first, as his attempt to set America's ship back on the > course of egalitarian, republican government. Boles rarely sees > Jefferson as in contradiction with himself. Rather than seeing the > Louisiana Purchase as an uncharacteristic but necessary action to > create an agrarian republic, Boles sees the purchase as the logical > conclusion to Jefferson's belief that the president's scope should be > narrow but his actions within that narrow sphere should be strong and > decisive. Jefferson's second term as president, however, lacked the > consistency of purpose and vision that had marked Jefferson's > political life to this point in part because his idea of liberty > contrasted with the desires of his political followers and the needs > of a nation on the brink of war. > > In retirement, Jefferson does not cease building a republic. From his > role in creating the University of Virginia to his careful treatment > of guests to his renewed correspondence with John Adams, Jefferson > was careful to lay a cultural foundation for republicanism. In fact, > Boles calls him a "secular millenialist, so broad were his > expectations for the future of the nation and its role as an exemplar > for others" (p. 345). Poignantly, Boles ends his biography with a > short biography of Monticello after Jefferson's death. The > architect's most beloved physical creation experienced the ravages of > republican love--trampled on, worn down, and battered by visitors and > cared for by those whose desire to preserve outstripped their > ability. > > Boles's Jefferson is sure-footed and confident in his vision of > America. He is not faultless; Boles notes his financial woes, > political maneuvering, and the impossible contradiction that were > Jefferson's ideals and actions on race and slavery. But, Jefferson is > prescient in seeing what the nation needs and what it could be. > Unlike other recent biographies, Boles does not present us with an > evolving or changing Jefferson. At times, Jefferson gives in to > American society; he will not end slavery, he will not end America's > move toward manufacturing, and he embraces a conservative view of > race. From his entry into the political world in the 1770s, however, > Boles's Jefferson determinedly agitates for a radical republicanism. > > > While Boles often notes how Jefferson brought his ideas about slavery > to the political process, he does so with the unstated assumption > that Jefferson thought slavery was morally wrong. There are many > moments in his younger years where Jefferson proposed changes to > slavery that could have led to abolition. For example, when writing > about the Declaration of Independence Boles notes that "had the > passage on slavery remained, it could have supported Jefferson's > later attempts to promote abolition and the colonization or > resettlement of the freed people" (pp. 70-71). > > Yet, in the end, Boles views Jefferson as a common eighteenth-century > man when it came to race and slavery. In his discussion of > Jefferson's observations on race in his _Notes on the State of > Virginia_, Boles notes that "this voraciously curious reader was > summarizing commonplace late-eighteenth-century French and European > scientific conjecture, which regularly described Africans as > inferior..... A decade later some of his Federalist opponents did > attack him for his disquisitions on race, but their motivation was > more political than moral" (p. 80). For Boles, Jefferson's views on > race were reflective of social norms while his ideas, if not his > practice, on slavery were nothing short of progressive. > > Riley's monograph challenges us to think about the consequences of > these unacted-upon ideals as he examines the complex political world > of Jeffersonian America. He is interested in northern antislavery > advocates who were also Jeffersonian democrats. Increasingly, > southerners regardless of party articulated a clear political concern > for their rights as slave owners, yet for decades these southern > democrats also allied themselves with northerners. This national > coalition enabled the expansion of the republic, but how, Riley asks, > did this uneasy coalition come to be and why did men who loudly > decried against slavery also vociferously support a party that > championed slave owning? > > In part, the answer is that in compromising with slave-owning > southerners, northern republicans came to accept racism and slavery > as a necessary evil for the undoubtable good of preserving the union. > Riley traces the path of the Jeffersonians from their > antimonarchical, anti-elitist, radically egalitarian roots in the > 1790s to the unwieldy alliance of southern slave owners and northern > egalitarians whose commonality was the shared rejection of black > citizenship in the wake of the Missouri Crisis. Jeffersonians did not > reject "transatlantic republicanism" because of the blow it dealt to > slavery in Saint Domingue and elsewhere; instead, "the Jeffersonian > coalition embraced anti-aristocratic republican thought while > tempering its antislavery content" (p. 30). > > Northern antislavery democrats were willing to temper republican > antislavery, Riley argues, because American patriotism became defined > by a willingness to preserve the union at any cost. While in the > 1790s Democrat-Republicans saw themselves fighting against the > monarchical impulse of Federalists, by the first decades of the > nineteenth century the idea of republicanism would not be worth the > destruction of the union. Thus, the ideals that had brought northern > and southern Jeffersonians together were pushed aside as now "those > same convictions seemed liable to undermine partisan bonds" (p. 109). > Riley argues that northern democrats were both committed to > prioritizing the nation and were simply inconsistent in their > arguments. They saw no contradiction in demeaning Washington as a > slave owner while putting Jefferson on a pedestal. This contradiction > was necessary because "Jefferson signified the complicated > reconciliation between democratic conviction and the power of > slavery" (p. 93). Without this compromise, Riley suggests, many > Americans thought the nation could not continue. > > In the anxious years between 1805 and 1808, federal politicians > repeatedly engaged in sectional disputes over federal involvement in > slavery. The international slave trade, taxes on selling slaves, and > even an attempt to move the capital back to Philadelphia all > reflected northern concerns about the power of slave states. Riley > sees the concern for slave owners' property rights as tantamount to > understanding tensions within national political parties. For > example, he stresses that people disliked John Randolph's manner and > questioned whether the democratic party could withstand his manner > coupled with his ideas on slavery (pp. 118-119). The outspoken > Virginian challenged the ability of national political parties to > compromise on slavery while limiting the dangers of sectionalism. > > Not all Jeffersonians could bear the pressure to accommodate slavery > and slave owners. Some, like Francis Blake, joined the Federalists > while others, like James Sloane, became vocal opponents of their > southern compatriots. But, as Riley notes, "disaffection from the > Democratic-Republican party was driven by sectional grievance, not > antislavery argument" (p. 148). This infighting could have continued > with disastrous consequences had the War of 1812 not "worked to > suppress Jeffersonian dissent, particularly on the subject of > slavery" (p. 162). This war stoked the flames of passion and "revived > fears of oppression and control ... that had marked Jeffersonian > ideology in the 1790s and early 1800s" (p. 172). As these fears > increased, northern democrats were more willing to compromise over > slavery. > > While the War of 1812 may have unified the Jeffersonians and weakened > the Federalist party, the inherent contradiction of the national > Democrat-Republican party continued to grow. Riley outlines this by > contrasting the Rotunda depiction of John Trumbull's _The Declaration > of Independence_, completed in 1818, with Jesse Torrey's _A > Portraiture of Domestic Slavery in the United States_, which was > published the year before. For Riley, these pieces "point to an > ongoing conflict between nationalism and slavery in the post-War of > 1812 United States" (pp. 202-03). This conflict would come to a head > in the Missouri Crisis, which Riley sees as "the culmination of > sectional conflict over slavery during the Jeffersonian era" (p. > 203). > > Riley's argument is nuanced, and he teases out the centrality of > slavery from the details of congressional debates and political > intrigue. At times, rather than refining political categories, Riley > shows the futility of categorizing political thinkers in the early > republic by political party. And, in an age where scholars are > thinking about the connections between slavery, capitalism, and the > federal government, Riley's conclusions reinforce the sense that > slavery may have been increasingly recognized as immoral during the > early republican period but fears of a failing economy and government > would continue to take precedent over issues of morality. > > When placed beside Boles's biography, we can see the longer-term > inconsistencies of the age alongside one glaring consistent idea: > that America would be a nation for white men. Riley is explicit about > this, arguing that "rather than an institution that was taken for > granted, that, to modify John Randolph of Virginia, Americans were > simply born into, slavery was instead subject to ongoing political > negotiation. It required accommodation and toleration. And those acts > made all free Americans, especially the white male electorate, > responsible for slavery" (pp. 251-52). Boles is more circumspect; he > sees Jefferson's ideas on race as a product of his time and his > legislation on slavery continually thwarted. In the aftermath of the > Revolution, as Virginia gave up its land claims and future states > were envisioned, Boles argues, "abolishing slavery was the paramount > issue to no political leader of the time.... No southern state > accepted the prohibition on slavery, not even Virginia, whose other > two delegates also voted to strike the clause" (p. 117). In different > ways, and with different source bases and subjects, Riley and Boles > articulate the same conclusion about slavery in the early republic: > that it was part and parcel of American democracy. > > Citation: Tara Strauch. Review of Boles, John B., _Jefferson: > Architect of American Liberty_ and > Riley, Padraig, _Slavery and the Democratic Conscience: Political > Life in Jeffersonian America_. H-Slavery, H-Net Reviews. May, 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=50250 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
