Slavery and the Founders: Dilemmas of Jefferson and His Contemporaries

by Paul Finkelman

This text studies the attitudes of the founding "fathers" toward slavery. Specifically, it examines the views of Thomas Jefferson reflected in his life and writings and those of other founders as expressed in the Northwest Ordinance, the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution itself, and the fugitive slave legislation of the 1790s. The author contends: slavery fatally permeated the founding of the American republic; the original constitution was, as the abilitionists later maintained, "a covnenant with death"; and Jefferson's anti-slavery reputation is undeserved and most historians and biographers have prettified Jefferson's record on slavery.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Race, American History

226 pages, Hardcover

First published November 25, 1995

About the author

Paul Finkelman is an American legal historian. He received his undergraduate degree in American studies from Syracuse University in 1971, and his master's degree (1972) and doctorate (1976) in American history from the University of Chicago.

Reviews

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ramona Africa has said, "The Declaration of Independence was a lie."

I read this book to get a better understanding of how the enslavement of millions of Africans in the USA squared with the philosophies of the founders, especially Jefferson. Finkelman seems to do a great job in explaining the complexities, the inconsistencies, the fears, the prejudices, the negotiations, the compromises and the failures of those founding leaders. He outlines the debates of the Continental Congress over the question of slavery while framing the Constitution. He reveals the discussions that led to the passage of Article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance and how the article was interpreted and enforced to protect slave-holders property rights.

Jefferson himself hated controversy and was absolutely two-faced on the subject of slavery, talking gradual abolition to abolitionists privately, even while telling his fellow slave-holders what they wanted to hear privately. He was a firm believer in White Supremacy. He had a life-long fear of Black insurgency and retribution. This caused him to fear communities of Black freemen and to insist on their expatriation to Africa.

So yes. The Declaration of Independence was indeed a lie, engineered to solidify the White coalition needed to fight the Revolutionary War.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

In his work "Slavery and the Founders," Paul Finkelman explores the role of slavery in the formative years of the American republic, regarding both the political establishment and its leadership. In this respect, Finkleman focuses first on the specific manner in which colonial authorities adapted the structure of American government to accommodate the often contentious issue of slavery. He then discusses the personal relationships of various founding fathers with the system, concentrating primarily on Thomas Jefferson. Through this investigation, the text ultimately seeks to reveal slavery's importance as the principal issue in the early decades of the United States, as well as expose the fallacy of some oft-repeated falsehoods about early American political figures and their disposition towards the "peculiar institution."

Finkelman begins his examination with a survey of the political bargaining at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. While this period was not the first exhibition of a public discourse on slavery in the newly independent colonies, it was certainly the most significant. The agreement reached at the Convention in Philadelphia bound the previously somewhat independent states together in perpetuity, and demanded all citizens in the new nation abide by a common set of federal regulations. Thus, slavery was explicitly sanctioned by the federal Constitution.

Previous scholarship has emphasized the rivalry between large and small states as the dominant controversy of the Constitutional Convention. Relying on a new interpretation, however, Finkelman makes a convincing argument that it was actually the issue of slavery which was the most hotly contested point in the mediation. In support of this conclusion, he points to such illuminating statements such as one by James Madison, which asserts "the great division of interests in the U. States...did not lay between the large and small States: it lay between the Northern and Sothern." Madison also emphasizes this disparity is a direct result of the respective states "having or not having slaves."

While the author successfully demonstrates that regional persuasions towards slavery formed the basis of dispute and compromise at the Constitutional Convention, his larger judgment about the failings of the Northern delegates is somewhat suspect. Finkelman contends that Northern politicians agreed to secure slavery in the governing document, without receiving "any concession in return" from the South. He then uses this supposition to imply Northern representatives were either ambivalent or outright hostile to the cause of abolition. The reality of the situation in Philadelphia appears much more nuanced to most historians, however, and Finkelman himself introduces evidence discounting his argument which he chooses to ignore.

As the text notes, the South considered inclusion of the commerce clause to be a major accommodation. Additionally, even with the ratification of the "3/5 Compromise," the North held more seats in the first Congress than the South. This was despite numerous challenges to the portioning by the South bloc. Most importantly, Finkelman dismisses the notion that Southern states would have rejected the Constitution without explicit protections for the slave trade. He cites a number of explanations in this analysis, but they all ignore one crucial fact, many Southern states did in fact secede when they felt the slave trade was being threatened in 1861. Given the unquestionable course of American history, the suggestion that Northern states received nothing for their endorsement of slavery seems dubious at best.

Relying in large part on Thomas Jefferson's role in American politics before the Constitutional Convention, and including actions and correspondence from his subsequent years, Finkelman devotes the latter portion of his work to deconstructing a plethora of misconceptions relating to Jefferson's life and legacy. Observing that the public and academics alike have long viewed Jefferson as an opponent of slavery whose progressive sensibilities were restrained by his Virginian birth, the author offers a contrasting depiction of the founding father not often previously seen. He proficiently demonstrates that far from being an enlightened idealist in regards to slaves, Jefferson held a number of prejudiced opinions towards the black community, views that today would be labeled as racist. The most compelling evidence Finkelman produces in this analysis is an examination of the sexual relationship between Jefferson and his slave, Sally Hemings. Astoundingly, Hemings was not among the slaves Jefferson freed upon his death, a circumstance which as much as anything definitively indicates Jefferson held little regard for the plight of slaves.

While Finkelman accuses a number of historians of bias, alleging attempts to sanitize Jefferson's image, the author's own conclusion regarding the figure ultimately suffer from preconceptions. However, rather than attempting to exonerate Jefferson, the author at times seems to charge him with denunciations not always fair. The author summarily discounts emancipation clauses included by Jefferson in drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Constitution. While these attempts do not absolve Jefferson by any means, they do show a man at least somewhat interested in ending the institution of slavery. Additionally, the author makes the radical charge that "Racism might have developed without his [Jefferson:] support for it in the Notes, but it is nevertheless a legacy of Jefferson." Racism certainly existed before the time of Jefferson, and it undoubtedly would have continued without him.

Despite the minor deficiencies in his argument, Finkelman convincingly evaluates slavery's predominant role in the early years of the United States. This is vitally important to not only understanding our history, but also our leaders. For as Finkelman notes in regards to Jefferson, with full knowledge "We can then have a greater appreciation of Jefferson's many virtues...because we will see them in the context of his own humanity."

[Rhuff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite some secondary inaccuracies, Paul Finkelman's dissection of constitutional sociology is fascinating on many counts. If we are to keep to the "original intent" of the US Constitution, as so many conservatives insist, then slavery should still be legal. That it is not shows that the Constitution was never meant to be engraved in stone by divine fingers of fire, but a document that changes with the needs of those whom it serves. The "original intent" school, is, however, right in one thing: the document was designed as a political compromise between the ideals of liberty and common humanity, and the very real injustices and inequities of the social system to which it was applied. It is to protect these inherited inequities that the "original intenders" wrap them in constitutional law. Mr. Finkelman demonstrates here that they are - unfortunately - on solid historic ground for doing so.

In his take on Thomas Jefferson we see personified the theoretical contradictions poured into the foundations: how can a man so radical for liberty be a slaveholder? Jefferson was a man of his class and time, a white oligarch who stopped democracy at the door the minute it grew intrusive; and now all too easy to vilify. Yet this paradox is not so strange, and is in fact with us still. How could President Obama, for instance, speak of change while featherbedding Wall Street? Ending a disastrous Iraq War by continuing its "surge?" The ideal has always given way to the practical and expedient. The hypocrisy may be worthy of censure but only with great caution, for it lies in everyone at all times.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall I really enjoyed this book for Finkelman's extremely detailed look into the process of creating and enacting (or not enacting) major documents like the Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance. The only real issues I had were mostly with the organization of the book. I have a feeling that this book is mainly meant for use in classes where only specific chapters are read (which is why Finkelman provides his notes at the end of each chapter) but since I read it all the way through I found that it repeated a lot of information in the same way and I think the chapters could have been ordered in a more coherent way. My only other note is that there are a few (very minor) times, particularly in the chapters specifically about Jefferson, that Finkelman seems to make some assumptions that aren't supported by primary documents. They were minor but I still noticed them, especially in a book where generally a huge amount of attention was payed to details and primary sources.

[Ricardo Miró-Maldonado 🇵🇷 · Rating 5 out of 5]

FINALLY! Someone willing to speak against jefferson!

[Eva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Especially for anyone wanting a background in Thomas Jefferson's views on race, race relations, slavery, and much more--an essential text in the area

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved this book! I loved how the author really explained how central slavery was in the founding of this country. He really explains in depths the effects of the 3/5 clause, which I never thought a ton about, and just how much power one little clause gave to southern slaverholders. It was an excellent book and anyone that loves to know more about the early Revolutionary Era, this is a book for you.

I'm excited about this book, I look forward to getting more out of it the second go around

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don't think I've read all of it...Read it for a college history class, but would still find it interesting enough to read outside of that context. Finkelman puts Thomas Jefferson on blast, in particular....

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read part of it last week during Pride when I didn't have a book.
It was really interesting.

If you read it or only want to read part of it, read the chapter about Jefferson and Sally Hemings.