The Concept Of Presentism In Douglas L. Jefferson And Paul Finkelman

1026 Words3 Pages

Douglas L. Wilson addresses his idea of presentism differently than that of Paul Finkelman. Wilson sees presentism (regarding Thomas Jefferson) as a problem due to the fact that Jefferson was born into a time period in which slavery was normal. Jefferson’s concern extended beyond his own morality to the well-being of his slaves (Wilson). Even though he did own slaves, it was simply a norm for his time. In Finkelman’s eyes, Jefferson was extremely hypocritical. He agrees with the idea of presentism, stating that Jefferson wanted all people to be free, yet owned several slaves during the time of which the Declaration of Independence was written. Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but he did little to end slavery or to dissociate himself from his role as the master of Monticello (Finkelman). The ethical standard that both authors used is that Jefferson stated all men are equal but yet owned slaves, making the scenario unethical. Both authors had the same basic ethical standard in which they judged Jefferson but took two totally different sides to it. To Wilson, the morals of Jefferson’s time gave good reason as to why he thought this standard is incorrect. On the other hand, …show more content…

His writings show how he truly views slavery. In the first document, found in the Declaration of Independence, he claims that King George III is violating the rights of Africans by taking them and selling them into slavery elsewhere in the world. In the last document, written to Holmes regarding the Missouri Compromise, he states how people would be happier having a greater surface for the slave trade. This is a perfect example of how Jefferson was hypocritical; he simply contradicted himself. Although these documents were written forty years or so apart, I believe that it is still important to note his hypocrisy. This is mainly because Jefferson owned slaves throughout this entire time

Open Document