The political cartoon "The Philosophic Cock", drawn by James Akin, depicts Thomas Jefferson 's head on a large, strutting rooster. A hen with a black female 's face, presumably Sally Hemings, walks slightly behind staring adoringly at Thomas Jefferson. The caption for the cartoon reads "Tis not a set of features or complexion or tincture of a skin that I admire." This cartoon was drawn to decrease Jefferson 's political power by brining to light his illicit, long-term affair with his slave Sally, with whom he is alleged to have several children with.
The double entendre title serves to highlight Jefferson 's hypocritical actions when it comes to slave holdings. Publications, including "Notes on the State of Virginia", detail his view on Africans:
…show more content…
The female’s slave stance, while not outwardly hesitant, looks submissive when compared to the more powerful stance the white man takes. She had no power to resist any advances made by her master, since she cannot disobey orders. If the slave on the right and left are both the same female figure, the message could be interpreted as female slaves having a twofold value: sexual value and physical labor value. Beyond these two obvious values, any child from a union between her master and female slave, because of the law stating that children take the status of the mother, would result in more slaves for the master, thus increasing his capital. This law put female slaves even more at risk for being sexually assaulted. The painting distinguishes between two different white men, the wealthy figure on the right, and the working farmer on the left. The title "Virginian Luxuries" could be referring to how the slave trade in Virginia, one of the largest slave holding states, brought satisfaction to all types of people. Wealthy men could have concubines or prostitutes, while farmers could get hard labor to work their farms. However, since many wealthy men in Virginia were plantation owners, the painting could be referring to how the slaves fulfilled both needs for a single …show more content…
Therefore, particular features of black people in contrast to white people is not the focus of these works. Rather, they focus on the behavior of the whites, in these cases Jefferson and the wealthy plantation owners. While the political cartoon is a direct critique on Jefferson, "Virginian Luxuries" seems more a critique on the entire institution of slavery. The title, so blatant, sounds almost sarcastic making the entire work appear to be criticizing white society for seeing humans as mere luxury objects. The critique on Jefferson is his hypocritical stance coming from the dichotomy between his writings and beliefs about blacks, versus his actions. However, the cartoon does not take a stance on whether slavery has negative or positive outcomes since the "dark sides" of slavery are not shown. "Virginian Luxuries", in contrast, critiques all of the slave owners, particularly in Virginia by exposing the negatives of slavery so blatantly that it is unavoidable. This type of display is highly unusual for this period, and because it was hidden, it was most likely not a popular opinion. During this period, it was much more common to believe in the "happy slave" as a justification to keep slavery, while this piece directly contradicts this myth. Overall, both pieces were critiques on members of white society, either through a direct critique of
In Colonial Virginia in 1661, Rebecca Nobles was sentenced to ten lashes for bearing an illegitimate child. Had she been an indentured servant she would also have been ordered to serve her master an additional two years to repay his losses incurred during her pregnancy. After 1662, had she been an enslaved African woman she would not have been prosecuted, because in that year the Colonial government declared children born to slave women the property of their mother's master. A child born to a slave brought increased wealth, whereas the child of an indentured servant brought increased financial responsibility. This evolving legislation in Colonial Virginia reflected elite planter interests in controlling women's sexuality for economic gain. Race is also defined and manipulated to reinforce the authority and economic power of elite white men who enacted colonial legislation. As historian Kathleen M. Brown demonstrates in her book Good Wives, Nasty Wenches and Anxious Patriarchs, the concepts of gender and race intersect as colonial Virginians consolidated power and defined their society. Indeed, gender and race were integral to that goal. In particular, planter manipulations of social categories had a profound effect on the economic and political climate in Colonial Virginia.
Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner himself, originally wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all slaves should coexist with society, but he ended up revoking his opinions. Notes on the State of Virginia, written by Thomas Jefferson was a story that had conflicting ideas about African Americans and their role in society. During Jefferson’s time period, whites often regarded African Americans simply as slaves, or even a different species altogether. Slaves were regarded as culturally, physically, and mentally different from their white counterparts. Americans started to become dependent on their slaves, which made them want to keep their dominant relationship even more than before. Jefferson believed
He wrote, “I deny that the power of the slaveholder in America is ‘irresponsible.’ He is responsible to God… He is responsible to the community in which he lives, and to the laws under which he enjoys his civil rights.” This statement is wrong because it can be proved that slaveholders did not carry themselves with the values that Hammond portrays them to have. Madison Hemings, Thomas Jefferson’s enslaved son, recalls how his mother was treated by Jefferson in the time after his wife passed away. He states, “during that time my mother became Mr. Jefferson’s concubine, and when he was called back home she was enceinte by him,” and he continues on to describe her as, “well used,” implying that Jefferson continued to mistreat her throughout her life. This situation of his mother being a concubine of Jefferson was neither responsible to God nor to the law. The relationship between slave and slave owner or even relations between different races, was also disobeying the Anti-Miscegenation laws of the time period. In like manner, the act of sexual relationships outside of marriage, like the one of Jefferson and Heming’s mother, is a sin unto God. Another illustration of the irresponsibility of slave owners towards God is the claim of Nat Turner, , “when the white people would not let us be baptized by the church, we went down to the water together… and were baptized by the spirit.” An even more
Thomas Jefferson is a well-known and respected man of American History. He was a legislator, president, a father, a spouse, a widow, an inventor, a plantation owner, and a slave owner. Many people fail to acknowledge the fact that, much like his fellow citizens, Jefferson too was a slave owner himself. In his life, he made so many accomplishments and strides of progress in the early days in favor of America, perhaps it is hard or unthinkable for some to believe that he was just an average man of his times. Similarly to many men of the time period, Jefferson also had sexual relations with one of his slaves. This relationship was reflective and consistent with Jefferson's views on slavery which were that of an abolitionist of sorts.
“Line of Color, Sex, and Service: Sexual Coercion in the Early Republic” is a publication that discusses two women, Rachel Davis and Harriet Jacobs. This story explains the lives of both Rachel and Harriet and their relationship between their masters. Rachel, a young white girl around the age of fourteen was an indentured servant who belonged to William and Becky Cress. Harriet, on the other hand, was born an enslaved African American and became the slave of James and Mary Norcom. This publication gives various accounts of their masters mistreating them and how it was dealt with.
...kes a negative attitude throughout the article. He simply states the facts, supports them, and moves on to his next point. Jefferson never appears to be angry and does not point out anything that distracts the reader from the message that he is trying to convey. He keeps a serious tone throughout that keeps the reader drawn into what he is saying the entire time. The reader feels a sense that Jefferson is serious about what he is saying and he is not to be taken lightly at all.
“All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights,” (Thomas Jefferson) This is the famous statement made by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. He is being extremely hypocritical here considering he himself owned a near two hundred slaves. The slaves are still owned and treated as ‘property’. Thomas Jefferson did not have care for the slaves. The equalities discussed in the Declaration were not aimed to all men, they were aimed at specific white men. Frederick Douglass a former slave excellently asks in reaction to Jefferson; “Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?” What he means by “Us” is African American, it could also mean slave considering he was one. It is just so perfectly put because it is obvious the beliefs of Jefferson were not extended to African American’s or slaves. He continues on rather sarcastically “confess the benefits”, this is important because there was very little benefits. (Frederick Douglass, 1852,
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
In writing this letter to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Banneker, clearly and precisely uses numerous rhetorical strategies to establish his point that the immoral, unlawful and horrid institution of slavery should be abolished in the thirteen colonies of America. Centered on the argument against slavery Benjamin Banneker uses a passive-aggressive, informal, and specific tone throughout the entire letter. His belief that if he can sway Jefferson first, and then the government of the abomination that is slavery, then there is a chance that it may finally be terminated in America. To do this and to truly persuade Jefferson, Banneker demonstrates an immense amount of rhetorical strategies such as analogy, comparison and contrast, hyperbole, allusion,
He calls attention to the time when “human aid appeared unavailable” and “hope and fortitude” did not affect the American people. This helplessness is the same emotion that the slaves endure, attempting to evoke sympathy in Jefferson so that he will take action against the unjust institution. Throughout the letter, Banneker recommends that Jefferson, “put your souls in their soul's stead;” the use of pathos and allusion to the Bible calls attention to Jefferson’s religion and how the institution of slavery doesn’t correspond with his religious beliefs. This, again, highlights Jefferson’s hypocritical stance. It is through Benjamin Banneker’s use of rhetorical devices that he is able to convey the injustices of slavery to Thomas Jefferson and to make progress with the hopes of all slaves being freed from the grasp of
The aim of this letter was to challenge Jefferson on the topics of slavery and racism, highlighting the hypocrisy and hopefully inspire him to take further action. Banneker’s tone is polite, and he spends
Banneker makes these religious appeals to attack Jefferson’s pro-slavery stance. Banneker conveys that while Jefferson is “fully convinced of the benevolence of the Father of mankind,” yet he “counteracts his mercies” by letting slavery continue. His religious appeal serves two purposes, the first of which chains Banneker and Jefferson under a common God. This goes on to show that Jefferson and Banneker have a collective understanding. However, while this ties the two men together, it also ridicules Jefferson. Banneker attacks Jefferson under the eyes of God so that he can sustain a respectful tone while also reprimanding
For Jefferson, racial injustice is present in court. Because of the color of his skin, Jefferson was automatically found guilty by those 12 men. “12 white men say a black man must die, and another white man sets the date and time without consulting one black person, Justice?” (157) The jury that decided his sentence was made up of 12 white men. Jefferson’s trial was unfair because the verdict was made by all white men. Jefferson was really just at the wrong place at the wrong time, but the biased jury saw him as guilty before finding any real evidence. This scene from court is an example of how Jefferson is treated unfairly because of the way he is viewed by others.
...ootan are attracted to black women, Jefferson may offense some readers. As a result, using insulting language can anger and offense readers that they may stop reading Jefferson’s work.
In conclusion, women were considered property and slave holders treated them as they pleased. We come to understand that there was no law that gave protection to female slaves. Harriet Jacob’s narrative shows the true face of how slaveholders treated young female slave. The female slaves were sexually exploited which damaged them physically and psychologically. Furthermore it details how the slave holder violated the most sacred commandment of nature by corrupting the self respect and virtue of the female slave. Harriet Jacob writes this narrative not to ask for pity or to be sympathized but rather to show the white people to be aware of how female slaves constantly faced sexual exploitation which damaged their body and soul.