>> David Ferriero: Good evening. I'm David
Ferriero, the Archivist of the United States.
It's a treat to welcome you this evening to
the William G. McGowan Theater here at the
National Archives, whether you're here in
person or joining us on our YouTube Channel.
We're looking forward to hearing from Annette
Gordon-Reed and Peter Onuf, authors of the
recent and very well received "Most Blessed
of the Patriarchs: Thomas Jefferson and the
Empire of the Imagination." After the program
they will be signing copies of their book
in the lobby.
First I'd like to tell you about two other
programs coming up on Tuesday, May 31. At
noon we'll have author David Priess who will
be here to talk about his book, "The President's
Book of Secrets: The Untold Story of Intelligence
Briefings to America's Presidents from Kennedy
to Obama." A former intelligence officer Priess
interviewed every living president and vice
president as well as many others involved
with the production of the president's top
secret Daily Intelligence Report, his book
of secrets.
Later that day, 7:00 p.m., Gary Zola, the
author of "We Called Him Rabbi Abraham," will
discuss why Abraham Lincoln was given the
title of rabbi by America's small but growing
Jewish population.
To learn more about these and our public programs
and exhibits, consult our monthly Calendar
of Events in print or online at www.archives.gov.
There are copies in the lobby as well as a
signup sheet so you can receive it by regular
mail or e-mail. You will also find brochures
about other National Archives programs and
activities.
Another way to get more involved in the National
Archives is to become a member of the National
Archives Foundation. The foundation supports
the work of the agency, especially our education
and outreach programs. And the CEO, President, of our foundation is right there in the front row, A'lelia Bundles.
>> [Applause]
>> David Ferriero: Now Doctor as of this past
weekend. Congratulations.
>> [Cheers and Applause]
>> David Ferriero: And there are applications
for membership, also, in the lobby. A little-known
secret that I keep telling everyone about,
no one has ever been turned down for membership
in the Archives Foundation.
Thomas Jefferson had many roles and personas.
Here at the National Archives we hold documentation
of the public/political Jefferson as Delegate
to the Continental Congress, Envoy to France,
Secretary of State, and President of the United
States. The centerpiece of this building's
rotunda holds the Declaration of Independence.
We preserve the records of the Continental
Congress which contain debates and correspondence
documenting the efforts of a new nation trying
to get a foothold on the world stage. The
treaties, congressional messages and other
federal records of Jefferson's presidency
documented time during which the nation was
tested on the international stage while at
home it doubled its territory.
The richest source of information about Jefferson
comes from his own pen. And we have an unparalleled
source of those writings and Founders Online.
The papers of six major founders of the United
States' projects supported by our National
Historical Publications and Records Commission
come together to offer free online access
to the original words of Franklin, Washington,
Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. Jefferson's
papers alone amount to over 43,000 documents.
And more is yet to come. Founders Online allows
all of us, students, casual readers, scholars,
like tonight's guests, authors, to learn more
about Jefferson and the public feature and
the person in his own words.
Tonight we hear from Annette Gordon-Reed and
Peter Onuf about their new study of Jefferson's
life, "Most Blessed of the Patriarchs." Since
its release last month the book has received
praise from many reviewers. Peter Baker in
"The New York Times" wrote, "To the already
bursting Jefferson cannon they add a fresh
and layered analysis, one centered more on
his interior life than his deeds for posterity.
Gordon-Reed and Onuf are not the first to
search for the other ways into Jefferson's
private place nor will they be the last but
they've provided a smart and useful map for
those certain to follow."
Annette Gordon-Reed is the Charles Warren
Professor for American Legal History at Harvard,
also a professor at the Radcliffe Institute
for Advanced Study, and formerly a visiting
professor of American History at the Queens
College, University of Oxford. She's the author
of a number of books including "The Hemingses
of Monticello." For whcich she won the Pulitzer Prize for History.   Peter Onuf is Professor of History, Emeritus,
at the University of Virginia and Senior Research
Fellow at the Robert H. Smith International
Center for Jefferson Studies. Previously he
was the Harmsworth Professor of American History
at the University of Oxford. He is the author
of a number of Jefferson books including "The
Mind of Thomas Jefferson" and is co-host of
the public radio program, "Back Story with
the American History Guys."
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Annette
Gordon-Reed and Peter Onuf.
>> [Applause]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Here we are. Welcome,
everybody, on this beautiful day. I'm told
it has been raining here incessantly. We had
a similar problem like that in New York. But
it's been a beautiful, beautiful day.
>> Peter Onuf: Yeah. And we'd like to talk
about our book. We're going to start by talking
about ourselves because that's what's really
interesting about this book.
>> [Laughter]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Forget about him.
What about us?
>> Peter Onuf: What about us? Enough Jefferson
already.
We'd like to talk a little bit about our collaboration.
It's unusual in our line of work to collaborate
because historians are the last of the petty
bourgeois shop keepers out there who run their own operations.
But we go way back, 20 years.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Mm-hmm.
>> Peter Onuf: We've been talking for those
20 years. And at some point Annette realized,
because I'm pretty clueless, that we had a
book in us. So explain that.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Explain it. Well,
we always start out say being this because
I think it's very, very critical. I met Peter
back in 1995, I believe it was. I had written
a book, a manuscript, on Thomas Jefferson,
Sally Hemings and American controversy in
response to some op-eds I had seen about the movie "Jefferson in Paris'  in which people were saying it couldn't
be possible that Jefferson had a relationship
or liaison, however you want to call it -- we
can talk about that later, maybe -- with slaves
on his plantation. There was no evidence that
this happened. Jefferson wouldn't be involved
with a slave girl. So I sat down to write
what I thought would be an op-ed and it kept
getting longer and longer and longer. And
I ended up writing a book.
And I wanted to try to test out what I was
saying. Basically it was sort of looking at
the historiography and questioning some of the ways that historians had written about it. The original title was
"Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: Historians
and the Enterprise of Defense." Because that's
what I thought was going on here. They were
acting like defense lawyers, thinking about
this story.
So I sat down and wrote this book. And then
I had it in my mind that I would have people
read it. And I wanted particular types of
people to read it. I wanted people who I thought
would be hostile to what I was saying, people
who believed what the historians --
>> Peter Onuf: Me.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Yes. White guy.
>> [Laughter]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: The Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Foundation professor at the University
of Virginia. Ok, how is he going to think
about this? Right? This is what I'm thinking.
Now, of course he's going to be opposed to
this idea. I'd picked some other people who
had written about it and sent it to them as
well. I called Peter on the phone. I'm at
law school, in which we have faculty assistants.
I thought everybody had faculty assistants
so I was surprised, being thoroughly sexist,
I was surprised when a male voice answered
the phone. "Uh, uh, I want to talk to Professor
Onuf." He said, "This is Professor Onuf."
And I sort of -- I was nonplussed there for
a second. I managed to tell him that I was
calling him -- I was going to write a query
letter to see if he would read my manuscript.
He said, "This is sort of a query phone call,
I would guess." And I said, "Yeah, I suppose
so." And he agreed to read it. And lo and
behold, he did not hate the manuscript. This
is what I thought. He liked it.
I went down to Monticello to see him. And
a woman, Cinder Stanton, unbeknownst to me
who was a friend of his, was a senior historian
at Monticello, I sat down with her. I also
sent him a copy of it. I had sent him a copy
of it and then he wanted to see me as well.
So I went to his office and we talked. I liked
him immediately. We became friends. So it's
been this long conversation about Jefferson.
He's an intellectual historian. I am a social
historian. I wondered about politics as well.
So we decided that we would continue our conversation
over the years.
Once he decided he was thinking about retiring,
and I didn't want him to sort of ride off
into the sunset, wherever he was going to
go, I said we should do a book together. And
he agreed to do it.
So this is something -- it's easy to do when
you know each other as well as we know each
other. It would be much harder if we had wildly
divergent views about Jefferson but we pretty
much agreed, from our different perspectives.
So it's been a fun ride.
>> Peter Onuf: As a rule, I don't do people.
When I got the job at Virginia, it was to
be the Thomas Jefferson professor so I was
necessarily associated with a person. And
I've had to do a lot of work on Jefferson
over the years but I always focused on what
was up there, his mind, and found him to be
frustrating and fascinating. I'm deeply conflicted
about Thomas Jefferson. And just between us,
I think she's always been a little soft on
the guy.
>> [Laughter]
>> Peter Onuf: But she --
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Just what you want,
18th Century plantation owner. Go ahead.
>> Peter Onuf: She threw down the gauntlet.
She challenged me. And I have to say, actually
looking at this person as a person, trying
to make sense of him, has been a great treat.
I've extended my range. And old people don't
think they have any range to extend. So it's
been a lot of fun.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Oh, come on.
>> Peter Onuf: I think the common ground that
we explored together is what you might call
applied psychology, trying to make sense out
of how Jefferson fashioned himself, a sense
of himself, and trying to connect.
And I think this is the big contribution we
are trying to make, is to overcome the sphinx
complex, the idea that Jefferson -- that's
a literary reference, for you readers -- overcome
the idea that Jefferson can't be known.
We think there's a lot you can know about
Jefferson. And he's telling us all the time,
of course unintentionally because he always
insisted that his private life and his inner
most thoughts were his alone. And it was nobody
else's business. It was just Jefferson.
Well, he is, as pop- psychologists say, protesting too much. We took as a point of departure
the idea that this distinction between private
and public, which is in many way as a very
modern distinction that we have fashioned
in the modern world to protect ourselves to
create selves that we can celebrate and take
pictures of. I haven't mastered that yet.
I'm too old. That idea of self in some ways,
you could say Jefferson anticipates that.
But the self, of course, is, as we know, a
social construction. That is, there is no
self except in relationship to other selves.
So this is the point of departure. We don't
think you can make the distinction Jefferson
insisted on. To that extent, we don't take
him at his word.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Mm-hmm.
>> Peter Onuf: But the working method has
been he deserves to be taken seriously and
we're going to say this word once tonight,
and you may not repeat it in any question.
We think it is terminally boring to call him
a hypocrite. Oh, a hypocrite?
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Hypocrisy.
>> Peter Onuf: The H-word. It's the end of
all conversations about Jefferson. It, in
effect, accepts his distinction between private
and public and says Jefferson knows he's a
liar, he is not owning up to the life he lives
and his responsibility, of course, for the
enslavement of his own people.
So if you want to leave now because you had
a question planned --
>> [Laughter]
>> Peter Onuf: -- it's ok.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: It's ok. Well, the
idea was to -- we think it's been in a ditch.
Jefferson scholarship has been in a ditch
because of that construction of him, the notion
of hypocrisy and he's a hypocrite. As you
said, it's the conversation stopper. And here's
a person who had his hand in so many aspects
of American life from politics to science,
all kinds of things; a very interesting person
that you really don't get a chance to deal
with and you have to deal with him because
he's at the center of so much of American
life in the early American republic. I mean,
a person who once he takes office in 1800,
he has two terms and then he has his acolytes
who come after him, Madison and Monroe, a
brief moment for John Quincy Adams. Then we
get Jackson, sort of a knockoff Jefferson.
>> Peter Onuf: Doesn't belong on money, though.
>> [Laughter]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: But a person who sees
himself as Jeffersonian. We don't really have
that record of political influence for that
length of time and how can you just sort of
use that individual and sort of dismiss him
with the word hypocrisy? There's a lot there
to deal with.
So we do say in the book that we are -- and
we sort of qualify this whenever it is all
reasonable -- to take him at his word. What
that means you is take him seriously. And
we do something else that I think is very,
very important. There's a historian, Virginia
Scharff the first time I met her -- she's
written a book about Jefferson, "The Women
Jefferson Loved." This was before she had
written the book. She was working on it. we
met at the OAH. And she said -- she asked
a question. She said, "What if the people
in Jefferson's life actually mattered?" In
other words, if the people around him were
not just used as pawns or people to sort of
reflect upon him, if you took all of them
seriously.
So not only do we take Jefferson seriously
that he has a set of motivations, a set of
hopes and desires that he expresses, some
that he expresses through actions, some through
his words, but everybody around him we take
seriously as well to try to get a portrait
of what is going on in his life. And sort
of move aside, move some of the things that
have been written about him -- I guess Lincoln
has been written about more than he but there
are so many biographies. There's such a construction
of Jefferson that comes from other people's
-- I think a lot of people's wishes and desires
and so forth. And every generation has their
own expectations.
You know, we'd really try to get most -- most
of the work we use, the research is pretty
much his letters, some secondary sources.
But primary sources, we try to do that to
sort of build him as much as -- you know,
from the inside-out as much as we possibly
can with also using some of the things that
we've learned over the past 20, 30 years.
And slavery historiography, political history,
all of those things to bring to bear to give
a different portrait of him.
>> Peter Onuf: Right.
So we thought we would start tonight -- because
we don't want to bore each other and we're
doing this quite a bit so tonight we're going
to try something new. It's always new. We
don't know what's going to happen.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: And mean that really.
But go ahead.
>> Peter Onuf: But this is sort of true. Let's
talk about religion. Inevitably we will talk
about slavery. That's probably what you all
are interested in. And unless there's a Unitarian
out there -- would you disclose? All right!
Finally. This is the first time on our tour.
It's astonishing because --I believe that
was a woman.
>> [Inaudible]
>> Peter Onuf: All right. [Laughter] Wonderful
to meet you. I hope we can talk later. I'm
a lapsed Unitarian.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: How do you tell? A
lapsed Unitarian. That's an interesting concept.
Forgiven.
>> Peter Onuf: Jefferson thought that every
young man, with all due respect, but every
young man in America would be a Unitarian
one day. You know that quotation, I'm sure.
>> [Inaudible]
>> Peter Onuf: Yes. So what went wrong? What
happened? It's very easy to dismiss Jefferson
as some kind of, well, I don't know, French
philosopher. And we had a fight. We cherish
our only disagreement so far because we work
it for all it's worth. We really haven't disagreed
about anything, not even about this, honestly.
But we'll stage it nonetheless.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: He thinks we weren't
disagreeing.
>> Peter Onuf: Ok. Let's disagree
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: No. It was about religion.
I had taken Jefferson to -- when he says that
he's a Christian, a sect unto by himself, unto
himself or whatever, that he was sort of paying
lip service for the purposes of sort of throwing
people off the trail. I didn't think he took
it very, very seriously. Because when he describes
himself as a Christian -- I grew up in the
United Methodist tradition, the littlest Methodist,
as one of my friend's fathers called it. And
there are certain precepts, certain things
you believe if you are a Christian if you
come up in that tradition and Jefferson didn't
believe any of them. He didn't believe in
the divinity of Christ. He didn't believe
in the trinity.
And I thought, well, how does that fit into
an ocean of Christianity if you don't believe
any of those things? The analogy I made is
somebody said that they didn't believe there
was one God and they didn't believe that Muhammad
was his messenger. If they were to say they
were Muslim, that might make people -- prick
people's ears up and think, well, what's going
on here. I thought about it. And from talking
to him --
>> Peter Onuf: Talking to Jefferson?
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: No, no. Talking you.
>> Peter Onuf: She does channel Jefferson.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Talking to you, I
thought about -- I got the sense that I might
-- I'm worried I might have offended you by
suggesting that, you know, that a Unitarian
-- that if he believed those things, that
he could not call himself a real Christian.
But he convinced me, reminded me -- you know,
as I thought more about it, people have argued
about the substance of Christianity for centuries
and centuries. And there are councils where
people say this gospel is in, that gospel
is out. And who am I to say from my perspective
that you must believe these certain things.
If he says that he's a Christian, if he understands
his understanding of what Jesus meant and
why it was important to him, who am I to not
take that seriously?
So I backed off -- that's one point of disagreement.
A small point of disagreement. But I think
it's not serious in the sense that it was
--
>> Peter Onuf: Our friendship is not at risk.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Not at risk but I
do think it's a serious point about Jefferson
and Christianity; that it is not right for
me or others to suggest, have a litmus test
of things and say -- a checkbox and say we
have the answer and he has to be out of the
club.
>> Peter Onuf: But it forced us to take his
religious quest, his spiritual quest seriously.
Here's a crucial sight for trying to explode
that private-public distinction. This is an
intensely private thing for Jefferson. But
it's a private quest for an understanding
of the world, of everything, of the passage
of time. It's what he does in his private
moments but it has cosmic significance for
him.
We'll try to show the ways in which it relates
to his political view, but the first thing
to say -- and I hope there's no Calvinists
here. We've got the Unitarian. We're going
to try to offend everybody in time. We should
have little cards you give us so we could
know what to say.
There's a wonderful tie-in here with the Texas
school board that some of you are from Texas
know -- if I say that, then she'll be offended
because she's from Texas. Do you know what
they did in Texas? Do you want to tell them?
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Well, because of Jefferson's
religious beliefs, or what they perceive to
be non-belief, they wanted to take him out
-- a discussion of him -- they didn't want
to take him out of the history textbooks totally
but there used to be a section where Jefferson
was discussed as the figure of enlightenment,
an important figure influencing the beginning
of the United States. So what they did was
to take him out of that discussion. And now
he's just a list of people. He's sort of like
a laundry list of folks who were influential
during that time. He doesn't have that special
place. So what they did is they replaced him
with John Calvin and Saint Thomas Aquinas.
>> Peter Onuf: Right. There's the light for
you.
>> [Laughter]
>> Peter Onuf: Ok, it's Jefferson versus Calvin.
And what does Jefferson say about John Calvin?
He says John Calvin is an atheist! "Don't
call me an atheist," says Jefferson, "it's
John Calvin." Now, why does he say that? It's
because Calvin is a Neoplatonist. Many of
you suffered through the republic when you
were young, so you know what I'm talking about.
He believed in these ideal forms.
It's all mystification. There's all of this
mediation between you and God. And the preachers
-- this is his great animosity towards priest
craft. Those human beings who assume to speak
for, with a special privileged relationship
to God, and you are worshiping them not God.
Jefferson's spiritual quest is for a direct
connection with the teachings of Jesus to
enable him to understand the creator, nature's
God; the God who created this wondrous thing,
this world we live in. And think, we are so
jaded and cynical, we know somebody will figure
everything out in due time and there's no
mystery left.
But put yourself in the 18th Century when
they didn't know anything. And imagine that
you believed it was a lawful world, that it
made sense but you could only begin to discern
those laws because of the light that learning
was shedding on the world. It was the invention
of printing. It was the republic of letters.
We began to see things. And imagine trying
to figure out some of those laws, not to master
creation but think of this as a form of worship,
to begin to appreciate the massive, infinite
scale of this creation which you could only
begin to glimpse. And you'll never fully know
it. After all, we only have a brief moment
on earth, something that she's not persuaded
of yet because she's so young.
Yeah, I can't do this. I can't start waving
my dead hands? My self-description is I'm
a nearly dead white guy. In fact, this is
where I'm getting a little weak on Jefferson,
a little sympathetic. I always accused her,
as I did recently, of being soft on Jefferson.
When Jefferson gets really old -- and I get
soft on him, too. I've become to appreciate
his effort, an effort which is based on faith
alone, that there is some pattern, some lawfulness.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Intelligent design.
>> Peter Onuf: He used that phrase, intelligent
design.
I think we need to renew our appreciation
for that sense of awe and wonder that, to
me, is the essence of true religious faith.
Anyway, enough preaching. Though if you like
this --
>> [Laughter]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: It's important. It's
ironic because he's the person who is seen
as the great atheist. It affected his political
career. That was the charge against him in
the 1790s. People saw him as a threat to the
United States because he was taking God out
of it. And that could not have been further
from the truth. He believed that the United
States would be a religious country. The only
question was what kind of a religious country
it would be and what would be the nature of
that. He did not want a country in which,
as you said, priests and people who served
as mediators or people who might influence
people in ways that he didn't think, you know,
made sense in a Republican society.
He believed in the enlightenment. That's the
thing that's very, very difficult for people
to accept about Jefferson. He really did,
in fact, believe in progress. That's hard
for us to think. We're much more cynical,
I believe.
I don't want to say cynical. I'd say realistic.
We know there is no straight line progression,
progress, you know, to the future. Go back?
We have no idea. We actually believe things
are going to get better and better and better.
And that's a tough, tough one for us to take.
>> Peter Onuf: Well, it was a tough one for
him to take in his own time. He died in 1826,
July 4. Of course, that's very mystical. That
must mean something.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Mm-hmm.
>> Peter Onuf: And before his death, had he
been paying attention -- and he did know this.
He would know that racial slavery was becoming
more deeply entrenched in America. He knew
that slavery was an injustice yet there it
was, spreading across the land. He knew that
the American Revolution had not triggered
a series of democratic revolutions across
the world because what happened in France
was a repudiation, was a horrible outcome.
It seemed almost the antithesis of what Jefferson
imagined the American Revolution to be.
Rivers of blood would flow before the peoples
of Europe would gain -- cross that threshold
of self-government, become real peoples, real
nations. All of this was happening while he
was still alive that is this massive failure
of the enlightened project, you might say.
Yet he still believed in it. He still had
faith in it.
I think the contrast is striking. And this
is what Annette is alluding to between our
attitude of call it disenchantment, call it
in this particular moment of malaise with
populism which is kind of a pejorative word
for democratic sentiment. Do we share Jefferson's
faith?
I think that's what's amazing about it. That's
probably the nicest thing we'll say about
him all night. It's going downhill from here.
But keep that in mind as we continue.
Let's pivot from that of that idea of fatherhood,
creator, to our title. Maybe you could explain.
I hope you're mystified by this title.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: There was a controversial
thing with our publisher, "Most Blessed of
the Patriarchs." They were not thrilled by
that. Well, some people were not thrilled
about that. Because they thought it was too
religious it made it sound like some, you
know -- like a patriarch, religious patriarch.
The phrase comes from a letter that he wrote
in 1793 to Angelica Schuyler Church -- people
who have seen the musical "Hamilton" may know
the Schuyler sisters. She was the most flamboyant
of the sisters. He writes to her as he's about
to come home to Monticello, after he has lost
the battle in the cabinet with Alexander Hamilton,
Angelica's brother-in-law, actually. He's
talking about going back to Monticello. He
says, "I've got my books, my fields to farm,
to watch for the happiness of those who labor
for mine," namely enslaved people. Talks about
his daughters and says, "If they come live
next to me and everything proceeds, I'll consider
myself as blessed as the most blessed of the
patriarchs."
And we thought this was an interesting way
to describe himself.
Another letter a couple of years later he
described himself as an antediluvian patriarch.
You think, What's going on here? You are the
so-called apostle of liberty. You are about to
become the head of the Democratic-Republican
Party. You're a Republican in your sentiments.
You are a person who championed the French
Revolution long after other people had sort
of abandoned it, been getting their heads
chopped off. This is a figure from ancient
times. A patriarch controls everything, the
people around himself. We know what patriarchy
means. And we wanted to explore that. This
is -- how he sees himself, that's what he's
seeing.
>> Peter Onuf: It just occurs to me. And I
can't help it; I come up with new stuff. He's
looking back to the Bible. He's trying to find
out what Jesus said. His conception of the
future depends on the long arc of history,
of time. And the use of the word patriarch
suggests that there's something about fatherhood
which is natural. Nature is a key word for
Jefferson. Of course, if it's natural, that's
a normative term, not just descriptive, out
in nature. It's what is and should be. And
central to his political philosophy and his
way of life is a conception of fatherhood
and of family values.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Family values and
patriarch. We think of patriarch in a negative
way. I said autocrat. He thinks of it in terms
of responsibility.
>> Peter Onuf: Right.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: That that's what he's
talking about. I'm watching for this. I'm
doing this. But he is in control but he sees
himself as responsibly.
>> Peter Onuf: All right. So I want you to
explain how a patriarch -- because this is
the epitome of domestic despotism. Isn't it?
Any of you old men remember what it was like
when they took you seriously?
>> [Laughter]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Well, yeah. People
had to take him seriously. Particular people
had to take him seriously, definitely.
Well, what's it like? He had a good sense
of himself. You're a patriarch if you see
yourself responsible. Responsible? Nobody
wants to believe that they are exercising
too much power.
>> Peter Onuf: Right.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: And so this is his
understanding of himself as something -- when
you think about slavery -- and this is a big
part of it. He is this way with his family,
his legal white family as well. But as far
as enslaved people go, he has a vision of
himself as somebody who is a good patriarch.
>> Peter Onuf: Right.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: He is a good patriarch.
He's watching for the "happiness of those
who labor for mine," is what he said.
>> Peter Onuf: That word happiness. An interesting
one for him to be using in reference to his
slaves.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: A person who thought
--
>> Peter Onuf: Right.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: As a younger man,
who had written of slavery as if it were,
Peter has written about, a state of war. These
people are inevitably conflicted. Inevitably
opposed to one another.
So we talk in the book -- we should say structurally,
the book has three structures. The first part
is called patriarch. We sort of explain how
he came to be this particular thing. The second
part is called traveler. We take him out of
Virginia. He goes to France. And we also have
him -- we talk about his life as a politician.
And the third part is called enthusiast. And
we investigate some things or talk about some
things in Jefferson's life that are not -- things
that are influences but are not the political
things, music, visitors. And then privacy
and prayers and religion.
But it's crucial, we say, that his conception
of his self is a patriarch. When he's writing
to Angelica Church, he has come back from
France and his attitude about slavery has
changed while he's in Paris. He goes to this
place that he loved. Some aspects of it he
loves; music, architecture, the sort of high
art there he thinks is wonderful. But he is
in some ways, he's frightened. You could say
horrified, by France society. French women
who are forward, who are out in the streets,
who inject themselves into politics and so
forth. He looks at the French peasantry. This
is prerevolutionary France. People were starving
in the streets. And he compares that to his
home to Virginia to his place and the people
at the bottom there, that is to say enslaved
people, he makes a comparison. He says they're
not starving.
Now, we understand that freedom, lack of freedom,
is a real problem but he makes a comparison
between their situation and at home.
We also talk about the fact that while he's
there, James and Sally Hemings are in Paris
with him. James Hemings, he's brought over
to be trained as a chef in some of the greatest
kitchens in Paris and in France. And Sally
Hemings comes over later on. These two people
are his wife's half siblings. Jefferson's
father-in-law, John Wayles, had six children
with an enslaved woman, Elizabeth Hemings,
and James and Sarah Hemings are the products
of that union. And they are with Jefferson
in Paris. And they are the faces of slavery
to him there.
So all of these things are going on. As he's
thinking about slavery, his attitude is changing,
they are there and he judges himself as a
slave owner by how he deals with them, which
is very, very different than what would be
a typical enslaver or enslaved relationship
that he would have with people down the mountain
or other masters would have either.
So all of this changes his attitude about
himself as a patriarch. So when he uses that
phrase, he's seeing himself as this new vision
of himself as the responsible patriarch. He's
going to be a good slave master.
>> Peter Onuf: And it's important to remember
that before Jefferson went to France, he had
had some bad experiences in Virginia with
the British invasion with his pathetic --well,
I don't mean to be judgmental -- his poor
performance --
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Problematic performance.
>> Peter Onuf: The term of art.
And if you read his only published book, "Notes
in the State of Virginia," you see it's a
long complaint about what is wrong with Virginia.
And this is the backdrop for what it is saying
about the change in attitude; that being in
France enables him to see things about America
in a different frame. Because when he's in
Virginia, he will tell you, as he does in
"Notes in the State of Virginia, being this
is written while the war is still going on.
And while his slaves are escaping to the British
lines, while the prospect of a race war is
very real, not just a figment of his imagination,
the idea that enslaved people could be a fifth
column joining with the British to overthrow
the revolution, destroy American independence,
that's very real.
It didn't happen. He's in Paris. And then,
as Annette says -- and this is where we had
the most fun with Jefferson's sexual anxieties,
which he projects on to young men.
Don't go to Europe if you're thinking about
it. There's nobody young here so I don't need
to warn you. You will learn --
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: There are young people
here.
>> Peter Onuf: Yeah, there are. Yes, go for
it.
>> [Laughter]
>> Peter Onuf: Those women of the street,
those fast women, those Salonnieres that Annette
is talking about, you'll be drawn in. You
will be seduced.
Jefferson knows what he's talking about because
he is almost seduced by it. And he sees then,
as he looks back across the ocean, not only
does he come to terms with slavery with Sally
and James, in a way, becoming domesticated,
part of a kind of family that has affective,
sentimental ties. There's a kind of reciprocity.
All of these things. He could begin to feel
with some degree of legitimacy -- of course,
we know things are very strange in that household
in Paris. Annette has written about that brilliantly.
But he looks across the ocean and he sees,
this is where we have wholesome, nuclear families.
This whole notion of the family being the
central institution in America -- we don't
have them anymore but there was a time in
the 1950s when they were proudly represented
on television, and sitcoms.
>> [Laughter]
>> Peter Onuf: Family values. It goes back
to Jefferson. Because it is that family, which
is the foundation of the republic.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Mm-hmm.
>> Peter Onuf: And contained within that family
are enslaved people, for the time being. Remember
that convenient idea of progress, things are
going to get better. When the world was at
war, Jefferson saw that it was compelling
to do something about slavery. When peace
came, Jefferson understood his role as that
of a steward: In the meantime, I will try
to ameliorate to improve the condition, of
my slaves, make them happy.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: And once you start
thinking that way, once you think you can
make people happy in that situation, that's
the absolute end of any kind of effort to
do anything socially about it. He had tried
as a young man, introducing a bill to have
emancipation in Virginia. That failed. 1796,
St. George Tucker tries to present a bill
to the legislature. They won't even take it.
They won't even accept it.
Jefferson understands, and I think rightly
so -- and people criticize him for not trying.
But he had ambitions. He had ambitions for
the country. The revolution and the maintenance
of the American Revolution was his obsession,
not slavery, not race. He turned himself to
that.
Now, we know as happens so often in life,
there are things you want, things you think
are important, and there's something over
here that's a problem and you say that will
take care of itself. But that is the thing
that ends up being lethal. Because obviously
in the end the Union breaks apart because
of this, because it wasn't dealt with.
So once he realizes -- he believes that there's
no Republican solution. And when I say Republican,
I mean Virginians were not going to vote slavery
out in the 1780s, in the 1790s. He could have
tried to do that. He could have spent his
life devoted to trying to change their minds.
And I don't think we would be sitting up here
on the stage talking about him now if he had
done that.
>> Peter Onuf: This is the dilemma. Let's
take a Jeffersonian lesson in democratic government.
The basic principle -- you say the mother
of principle of Republican government is majority
rule. It has to be the rule that we abide
by. Now, you say, well, majorities can be
mistaken. And they can, indeed. We know that.
We have lived with that throughout American
history. Yet, Jefferson believes in the progress
of enlightenment. That's the thing we keep
coming back to. When we talk about the empire
of the imagination or a subtitle, that's our
way of evoking that idea.
And it's only with the passage of time when
we reach the point that the majority of his
fellow patriarchs -- the second important
point to make; he's not the only patriarch.
He's not George Washington who is seen as
the father of his country. He is the father
of his people at Monticello and a society.
It's a nation of fathers and families. That's
his beautiful vision. And what attaches people
within the family are bonds of love and affection.
Now, that seems worse than a caricature when
we're talking about enslaved people but it's
very much part of his sentimental view of
human relations. He's a student of the Scottish
moral sense philosophy of the enlightenment.
He believes in the essential, social impulse,
this capacity for identification. After all,
equality and Republicanism doesn't make any
sense if we don't come together, if we don't
have common bonds and attachments. That's
part of that faith that we were talking about.
So, you must be patient because if he imposes
emancipation on his fellow slave owners because
he has superior wisdom, then they are his
slaves. That's the logic of the Revolutionary
period. That's why we will pray, as Jefferson
does -- and he uses that word prayer in 1814
-- that the younger generation will carry
on this good work because the enlightenment
is progressive. It's very hard for us not
to reject all of this as -- I'm not going
to say that H-word, but just dismiss it as
nonsensical. Don't you understand that this
is an enduring and powerful institution?
But that's the measure of his faith. And the
problem he presents to us is one that we face
today. And that is, How do you square our
moral sense with the reality that in a republic
we are bound by the will of our fellow citizens;
that we cannot exercise power over them?
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Yes. And the other
thing that's running through this, the notion
of Republicanism, is tainted, influenced,
by the doctrine of white supremacy.
He thinks about the community and a family.
The family is the basic unit, goes out to
the community, out to the state, out to the
nation. It's a nation of families. People
who are in a common mating pool. How can you
say how can you be equal citizens? How can
you say that we're all Americans if you say
you can't be in my family? We're all equal,
and we're all American, but you can't be in
my family. And he's not even close to being
able to talk about -- well, that he speaks
against it. He's assuring, well, we can't
do this. And the reason we can't do this,
we can't live here together, because we can't
all be in one family.
And that is something that Americans have
struggled with from the very beginning. It's
something we struggle with now. Certainly
couldn't have said the opposite of that, that
we should all come together. Because, again,
we still -- we would not be sitting here talking
to him. And that's a very difficult thing
for us to -- a sort of line to cross now.
I mean, we're at a point where things are
changing but you have commercial -- this is
only the last 10 years or so that you see
commercials with couples that are of different
races. And when you do, people complain. People
still complain about it.
I remember reading somewhere, I think it may
have been Alabama, they had laws on the books
against interracial marriage. They wanted
to go through and clean up the laws because
it's unconstitutional; they can't do that.
But there's some huge percentage of people
that said, no, leave it on the books even
if it's not legal.
So this issue of race and the place of African
American people goes through all of this question.
He sees fellow patriarchs with their fellow
white patriarchs because he can't conceptualize
African American people and white people living
together as a family. Because that was so
far from what anybody could say at the time.
You know, I think -- should we have people
ask us questions? We're just sort of --
>> Peter Onuf: Oh, I had much more to say.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: You can say something
else but I want to --
>> Peter Onuf: Yes.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Hear other people
ask us questions. We'll still talk.
>> [Question Inaudible]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Oh, wait a minute.
I think you have to come to a microphone.
Because they are doing --
>> Peter Onuf: While he's walking to the microphone,
I would like to underscore the point that
Annette is making. And that is, what you might
call the central tragedy of American democracy.
We long for those strong, affectionate attachments
that Jefferson reads into his family of families,
the nation, the family writ large. That's robust.
That's thick. That's not soulless like the
liberal idea of Adamistic individuals, each
a sovereign unto himself or herself.
These are the connections that make social
life meaningful yet it's also a boundary that
excludes people. And those people who are
being excluded, this is why I come back and
want to remind you that Jefferson's ideas
about separate nations, about separating blacks
and whites, come out of the experience of
the American Revolution. And his solution
is an enlightened one even though we find
it horrific. And that is emancipation and
patriation or later called colonization. If
the peoples were separated, then we could
declare the enslaved people. We could declare
them -- remember the happiness which is passive?
We could declare them a free and independent
people. That's his language in "Notes in the
State of Virginia." And then we would have
two free peoples. And they could meet together.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: But separately. But
in different places.
You see it -- I'll say this. I'm sorry. I
said I want to hear from you and now I keep
talking.
>> Peter Onuf: You might line you. Yeah. Make
sense?
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Because people [Indiscernible],
Jefferson's last manservant,  there's
no doubt in my mind -- the family says this,
that Jefferson loved Burwell, that Jefferson
had enormous affection for Burwell Colbert.
And Jeff Randolph talks about his companions
and people that he grew up with. He talks
about loving them. What you cannot do is talk
about love between a man and a woman.
This notion of affection -- unless it's mammy.
You can love Mammy. Because you're not going
to have children with Mammy. Mammy is like
mom, a mother figure. So it's interesting
this notion of love and affection. He knows
all of this. They talk about all of this type
except the kind that produces children.
So love is there, or some notion of love,
some realization and they talk about it but
not anything that is transgressive -- not
the transgressive kind.
And that's enough.
>> Ok. Jefferson did have mixed race children.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Yes.
>> When they got older, at least in some cases,
he let them have their freedom. Maybe not
with emancipation papers but let some of them
go to Ohio. Evidently felt some sort of family
responsibility toward them or some affection
toward them more than to other enslaved people
that he was responsible for. Can you say -- without
getting into the H-word --
>> [Laughter]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: You don't have to
abide by that.
>> Is there any realm in which he actually
overcame the racial prejudice in his own family
life and could see -- 
had some family affection toward his mixed
race children?
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Well, Madison Hemings
said that he was not in the habit of showing
partiality or fatherly affection to them.
And he says he was affectionate to his grandchildren.
And what that suggests -- people talk about
Jefferson, you know, playing games with his
grandchildren. So that's what is meant by
-- he compares himself to his grandchildren
who would have been his cohort. Not Jefferson's
oldest daughter who is the age of their mother.
We don't know -- he spent time with them -- in
my first book I had not thought about this
very much. But when I was writing "The Hemingses
of Monticello" there are these letters where
he's talking about going to Poplar Forest.
He'll tell the overseer: The others will be
coming up next week. I'm coming up with Johnny
Hemings and his assistants or apprentices.
He put his sons under the tutelage of John
Hemings who was the carpenter, the master
carpenter at Monticello.
So these guys are going up. It's a 90-mile
trip to Poplar Forest. It's a long way. He's
up there with them in a small place, for long
stretches of time. He goes with his granddaughters
who write letters about this time period.
And he talks about them stopping for picnics
and doing stuff like that. She never mentions
Beverly Madison in those things but they are
there. So they are named for people who are
his friends and favorite relatives. He has
a plan about them. The two oldest children
don't get papers because they go as white
people. And you don't want papers if you're
white because then that would mean that you
were not white. You would be enslaved. The
youngest two are given their freedom.
So it's hard to say what love means. He's
certainly not treating them like other people
are treated. I mean, their only family that
kind of leaves the place intact as free people.
But you don't really know -- he's not talking
about it. Madison suggests that, as I said,
he wasn't in the habit -- people transform
that and say he never. But what he says is
-- he's kind to everybody. But it's sort of
a detachment.
So I get a sense that he just didn't know
-- it was a tough situation because at some
point his grandchildren move into Monticello.
I suspect that their lives could have been
very different. The Hemings' children's lives
could have been very different if Martha and
her children lived in some other county. But
he can't treat his enslaved children -- illegitimate
is the word they would have used -- the same
way he treats his legitimate, white, grandchildren.
That would be an insult to his daughter.
And Martha [Indiscernible], the most important
person in Jefferson's life. He would not do
-- yeah. I just can't see them being treated
the same way.
>> Thank you. I have a question with more
to today's world.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Today's world?
>> Yes. Please bear with me for a moment here.
I find the title fascinating, "Empire of the
Imagination." Is it possible to build an empire
of imagination today?
Let me explain what I mean. Albert Einstein
said imagination is more important than knowledge.
What if a country of small or medium-sized,
say 10 million to 15 million people, were
possible to be organized as a mere perfect
[Indiscernible]. Would that captivate the
imagination of the world, perhaps? What if
the country was led by somebody who, you know,
is not only a man of theory but a man of action,
who could actually make that happen using
a blend of the best ideals that are classic
ancestors, including Jefferson had come up
with, and blending that with modern state
organization theories? Like, for example,
those contained in the [Indiscernible], the
book.
That's my question. Thank you.
>> Peter Onuf: Well, how many people live
in Finland? Seven million? Something like
that.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Something like seven
or eight million people.
>> Peter Onuf: We have a good friend, a distinguished
Jeffersonian scholar, who keeps telling me
that Finland is a Jeffersonian republic. There
is some argument for this. Connectivity is
really important to Jefferson in his world
of correspondence, writing letters, being
in touch with the world. And Finnish kids
grow up embedded, implanted, with cell phones
in their ears so they are always connected
and they have the best educational system
in the world, evidently. And education is
very important to Jefferson, who is very concerned
about the rising generation.
It's a wonderful question. I have to say good
luck if you happen to be in charge of this
country.
>> [Laughter]
>> Peter Onuf: That would be great. But I'd
like to put it this way. And I'll be brief
about it. To be a visionary -- and Jefferson
is a classic visionary. He can see things.
He can see far. He got it wrong about the
Unitarians but he did have a notion of continental
--
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: So far he's got it
wrong.
>> Peter Onuf: Maybe tonight we're going to
begin a revival.
But he did see the expansion of the American
way of governance and the way of life across
the continent. You can say that's probably
the most powerful validation of Jefferson's
vision.
Yet, to have vision, you have to overlook
things. And I think that would be the way
I think we both think about Jefferson and
his choosing to cite himself on a -- his home
on a hilltop, this seemed to be enabling him
to look far across space and through time.
But he didn't see things that were directly
beneath his gaze. That he overlooked.
I use the word realism, people like Alexander
Hamilton, more realistic. They don't necessarily
get it. They don't necessarily leave the great
legacy. But maybe they don't overlook those
things. They have to deal with them.
So I with, Einstein -- and I'm happy to be
associated with Einstein -
>> [Laughter]
>> Peter Onuf: That's so stupid.
I'm all for imagination. I think that's a
wonderful idea. I would say the one thing
that Jefferson would caution you -- wherever
you are now because you've disappeared.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Right there.
>> Peter Onuf: There you are. You mentioned
an enlightened individual, a man of action,
a man of vision. Beware of men of action and
men of vision. The great dominant hero figure
of the 19th Century was Napoleon. And Jefferson
lived long enough to see what a man who in
many ways is a man of modernity and kind of
enlightenment is also a man who brings unparalleled
carnage to the European continent. So I don't
want you to launch this project just yet.
I think you need, as my friend would say,
you need a whole country of Finns, who all
agree about these basic values and ideas and
share your vision. It has to be a collective
vision.
So there.
>> Hello. I think I'm one of your younger
viewers.
>> Peter Onuf: Yes!
>> I've always had an interest in American
history. Also, I'm a music teacher. I think
that there's no denying the impact that Hamilton
has had on pop culture. My seventh and eighth
grade students actually quote the musical.
They think it's so cool that I've seen it.
They are like, I want to see it so bad. I'm
just wondering about your opinion on how Jefferson
was portrayed, and if you've seen it, and
if you listen to the music in your car?
>> Peter Onuf: We love it. Jefferson -- this
is going to be sort of silly because, you
know, Daveed Diggs, who is not a white guy
from Virginia with the right complexion or
hair color, but he's very cool. We had the
privilege of meeting him. He came out to talk
to a bunch of Jeffersonians to say what are
they like. He was officially invited by the
President of Monticello, I don't know, have
a residence in the house, whatever. But he's
very cool.
In Jefferson's day and in his way he had a
sort of aura about him as well. Nothing like
Daveed Diggs. As an authority on this, it's
a different kind of coolness. But I think
he was a cool guy.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: I thought it was a
good portrayal of him. I said in a newspaper
article it was so wrong that it's almost right.
He captures the sort of mischievous nature
of I think of politics, not Jefferson's demeanor.
It's as if what's going on inside of Jefferson
-- it's turned inside-out. And it's all out
there, the stuff that's going on in his head.
I think it's quite amazing what he does. You
know, I think it is good for young people
to see it and to be excited about it so long
as you tell them -- it's all wrong.
>> [Laughter]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: That Alexander Hamilton
was not an abolitionist. He did not like immigrants.
He was, you know, for the big banks.
It's just a weird thing. I did this piece
about this. I kind of got in trouble about
it. What I was trying to explain was despite
all of the things that are, you know, not
right about it, historians love it because
someone said you can't argue with art. It
really is a work of genius how he's taken
letters, things that we quote all the time
and turned it into music. I would watch it.
I listen to it on my iPhone all the time.
I'd love to see it again. I think it's wonderful.
I think it's actually good for Jefferson.
>> Peter Onuf: Yes.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: You hear the lines.
The stuff he says, except for "What did I
miss?" And he sort of comes back and he's
been in France and doesn't know they've written
a constitution.
>> [Laughter]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Which he did, though.
>> [Laughter]
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: The other song -- he's
not the villain. He's much more sympathetic
than the original. It's just that he's --he's
Cab Calloway. You don't expect Jefferson to
be Cab Calloway, Andre 2000. But I do think
it's great. It's wonderful.
>> I think as Americans we're still pretty
idealistic and hopeful. Apparently we're all
going to vote to change something this year.
>> [Laughter]
>> But I'm wondering -- so we should give
Jefferson some credit for that, I think. And
I'm wondering if you would use another P-word,
not the H-word but a P word that is the paradox.
We have very high ideals: All men are created
equal. Even Jefferson didn't know how we were
going to interpret those words 200 years later.
But we have a hard time sort of making that
into a reality.
>> Peter Onuf: Right.
>> So, we're the children of the American
paradox and Jefferson is our father.
>> [Laughter]
>> Peter Onuf: Yeah. He has left a paradoxical
legacy that is obvious in the record of American
history. It says he can be taken in so many
ways. And that is what you're articulating
here.
But there are better and worse ways to take
Jefferson. I think that's the value, the added
value, of a proper historical understanding,
embedding him in his own time. He's not a
libertarian. The idea of equality doesn't
degenerate for him into the sovereignty of
the self, as I've expressed before.
There are things that are irredeemable in
Jefferson's legacy. He, in his time, believed
that there was a natural superiority to males
and that they had a role to play in family
formation and leadership. He was a white supremacist,
as Annette has said. But I do think it's the
hope itself.
I don't know -- I'd love to hear it affirmed
that we are an idealistic people. I wonder
if we are more complacent than idealistic,
if what those ideals are, what we're stretching
for, why we cherish ourselves so much, is
there some higher end toward which we aspire?
I'm not clear. But I spend my time in the
18th Century and early 19th Century. So maybe
you could tell me things are not the way they
seem to be.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: What do they seem
to be?
>> Peter Onuf: Pretty terrible, Annette.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Pretty terrible?
>> Peter Onuf: Oh, God. Am I going to get
political now? No, no.
I would say -- and this is nothing new. There
is a dialogue in American history that's true,
another way of saying paradox, and it might
behoove us to look back at Jefferson's fears
and anxieties. He wasn't a Pollyanna. He had
great hopes. But as I say, those are hopes
that he had to pray for. He had no empirical
evidence that things were going to turn out
the way he prayed they would yet he feared
that everything would fall apart. And the
main way we know this is his fear of -- his
fear throughout his life in politics that
the revolution would fail, that Americans
would not preserve the Union, that those basic
principles which he says ought to be our creed
as a people would not inspire the rising generation.
All of those hopes that young people would
save the world, would make it better. There's
always that fear, a fear that old people have
always had, that the young people just aren't
up to it.
Was that better?
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Well, it's depressing
but sure.
>> [Laughter]
>> I recently had the pleasure -- the privilege
of visiting the country of Haiti. And I wonder
if you could reflect on Jefferson's attitude
towards the black revolution in Haiti and
how you see the impact that that revolution
had on that period. One might think based
on what you said earlier he might see it as
a site for potential. Patriation as some other
presidents ultimately did as well. Of course,
Haiti struggled for so, so long and still
is struggling for respect. And even now, having
to sue the United Nations over what's happened
there with cholera. But back to Jefferson,
how would he view it?
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: The first thing he
says about it -- he writes a letter to his
daughter. One of the early things -- the revolution
-- he says, you know, they've taken over -- the
blacks have taken over Haiti and they've set
up a regular government; that's what's going
to happen in the rest of the Caribbean. So
it's sort of like a matter of fact thing.
And then when there are reports of white people
killing black people, then all of a sudden
he switches and it becomes fear. Because again
-- remember, Virginia, at this time, it's
about 40% black, that the Haitian contagion
-- because refugees are coming to Virginia,
Philadelphia, other places, and they are telling
the stories about the things that happened.
Then all of a sudden he's like, you know,
we can't have this. We can have an age of
revolution but he's not ready for a revolution
in which -- now I'm going to get political.
Black people cannot kill people for their
freedom. White people can fight for their
freedom. Black people can't fight for their
freedom. And that's true now. Black people
are supposed to pray. Pray for it. Not fight
for it. And that was his attitude.
At first, you know, oh, this is like a revolution.
And then it gets really serious. And then
it's cut off, his administration doesn't support.
Later in life he says, well, you know -- after
he's out of office he says, "I would recognize
Haiti." Because, as you know, they wouldn't
do it. I would do that but white people are
too prejudice to accept that.
So you're sort of thinking, wait a minute.
It's like he's saying -- nobody ever thinks
they're prejudice. Right? I'm not prejudiced.
It's those other people over there. They're
not ready for it. But it's a terrible story.
Because without white supremacy -- again,
it's this benevolent thing about declaring
independent people. Whites could come along
and say, all right, you're free. Whites can
help you set up your country, whatever. But
if you're going to fight, you can't fight
and kill for your freedom. So it's a double
standard about revolution.
>> Peter Onuf: Again, geopolitics intersects
with insurrection. That's his frame of reference.
You say, well, where could you actually put
these people? That's a good question. And
that's quite right. You declare them a free
and independent people but not really. He
imagined as a kind of protectorate. Well,
something like, say, Liberia or Sierra Leone,
the British predecessor. And, again, the notion
of fighting and killing, of course, in the
Civil War, black troops were directed by white
officers. So this powerful anxiety about the
racial order being turned upside down. So,
in theory, yes, at some future date, in some
distant place. And the best way to track this
is to look at what he thinks about different
possible sites for colonization and they keep
getting more and more distant.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: He doesn't think -- we
could live together.
>> So I was very pleasantly surprised to hear
you begin with a discussion of Jefferson and
religion. That's not what I expected when
I came here tonight. But I was also surprised
at the distinction you were drawing between
Jefferson's sort of private religious world
and Jefferson the public man. It would never
have occurred to me based on what I know of
him and what I know of Unitarian history to
have made that distinction. I was sitting
here trying to think of what that is. One
reason is because when he was writing, it
was right around the time of the Unitarian
controversy, centered at Harvard Divinity
School, center in Massachusetts. I can't believe
he wouldn't have known about that and what
was going on and the conversations that were
going on. But the bigger reason is because
the religion that he was talking about -- as
far as I know, he never darkened the door
of a Unitarian church.
>> Peter Onuf: They didn't have a lot in Virginia.
>> Not a lot in Virginia. But -- so it wasn't
he was saying join a Unitarian church.
When you were speaking of his religious or
spiritual values, it's not only that what
was said and believed and what is still part
of that tradition, it's not only that the
creator created nature and we find the sublime
in nature. It's not only that nature is the
path that we pursue the search for truth and
meaning but that the creator created reason.
And that's the link to the public Jefferson,
it seems to me, that makes his private religious
life make sense with the writer of the Declaration
of Independence struggled with his context
that he was in. It's all part and parcel to
me.
I just wondered if in your research, in your
thinking about linking these different aspects
of his life, "Empire of the Imagination,"
if you looked at the Jefferson Bible.
>> Peter Onuf: Absolutely.
>> Figured into your analysis?
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: We didn't get to go
through a full thing but that is, of course,
the link. For people that don't know, Jefferson
started -- first while he was in office to
create a Bible that he thought would sort
of be purged of all the mystifications and
so forth. And he took a razor and cut out
the miracle and created his own version of
the New Testament. It was called :The Jefferson
Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.
Yeah. We have a whole chapter talks about
that. It talks about reason and how it does
fit into his public life.
>> Peter Onuf: It's similar to his testimony
of slavery as an injustice. It gets out despite
himself. He doesn't want to publicize his
ideas. If they become publicized and he never
disowns them -- he says, yes, I said these
things and I still believe.
But he was, as he saw himself, ahead of his
time, ahead of the curve of enlightenment.
And in due course he had great hopes that
the tendency of politics and religion in America
was moving towards a religion of the people,
a democratic religion, a Christianity that
was, we might say, largely based on practicable
matters, ethics, amorality. This would happen
in the fullness of time. That was his dream
and fantasy. He was so excited about this
idea that he wrote to people in Cambridge
and said bring your preachers to us and they
will be rejected from pulpits -- because,
of course, we have bigoted sectarians, even
his good friends in Charlottesville with whom
he socializes but -- you will find in the
fields, people will gather from all around.
You'll have a Unitarian camp meeting, a revival.
Can you imagine that?
>> Yeah. [Laughter] We have them.
>> Peter Onuf: I think that brings us full
circle to where we started. And that is, these
religious ideas of his are not just for his
own edification. When he imagines his afterlife,
he imagines witnessing the unfolding of the
history he played a part in that is the progress
of enlightenment, the liberation of peoples,
and the triumph of reason.
I'd only add to reason, though, and this is
a point that we make throughout, is that effective
sentimental dimension, the heart as well as
the head that's crucial to his beliefs. So
the world wasn't ready. But even if the world
was for his religious testimony, but he thought
the arteries were good because people were
looking in the marketplace, the religious
marketplace, they were looking for efficacious
preaching and they need it in order to organize
their lives.
This was observed in the 1830s. Religion is
tremendously important in America. And more
and more groups like the Disciples of Christ
and -- are rejecting doctrinal tests. Because
it's part religion. It gets to basic things.
It's truly democratic. And ultimately at the
end of the day there's this convergence of
a proper understanding of the cosmos of the
world and the attitude toward it. And a politics
of love and respect that we would have for
each other.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: One more question?
>> Continuing on the religion theme. Early
you mentioned he was attacked or called an
atheist by a political opponent, which is
maybe parallel to some things we still see
today with politicians running. Did he take
that personally? People attack his religion.
How did that make him feel? Did he fight back
or did he just kind of let it go?
>> Peter Onuf: Oh. No.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Oh, he took it personally.
>> Peter Onuf: Yes. Very personally.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: I think that's one
of the reasons he sits down -- the 1790s,
his first election and the second, you know,
it was a horror show in terms of that. People
thought -- one woman thought people buried
their Bibles because they thought he was going
to outlaw the Bible; that adultery and incest
would become the norm if he were elected president.
Yeah, he didn't believe -- he was surprised
that people would think that because religion
was a private matter. So he had his own religious
beliefs. And he wasn't an atheist. That's
why he sits down to write the Bible. He thinks
it could be something that could be useful,
eventually, when people were ready for it.
This is sort of his antidote to this notion
of people going after people in public for
their views.
>> Peter Onuf: He didn't like conflict.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: No. He did not like
conflict.
>> Peter Onuf: He had an idea, a vision, of
social harmony.
And maybe we could end with that, with the
importance of music. This is not just a chapter
in which we indulge in a hobby of Jefferson's,
something that he had fun doing. In many ways
his engagement with music, the passion of
his soul, was a reflection or instantiation
of his notions of a larger cosmic harmony.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: People together in
harmony. That brings us back to this notion
of patriarch with him in control in a way.
>> [Laughter]
>> Peter Onuf: Orchestrating.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Orchestrating it all.
>> Peter Onuf: Imagine the Declaration of
Independence, which I'm wearing here tonight,
as sheet music for America. We're all singing
from it.
With that elevating thought and with that
notion of idealism sustaining us for a few
more generations, we say adieu.
>> Annette Gordon-Reed: Adieu. Thank you.
>> [Applause]
