Valentines Day, and Different Perceptions: Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Adams.

Why oh why is the story of this nation's beginning dominated by the Holy Triumvirate of Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington? 

OK.  I get a little frustrated by this continuing perception of Benjamin Franklin as being primarily responsible for the formation of the country.  The other one, of course, is the American romance with Thomas Jefferson.  But, who ever remembers the contributions of my man, John Adams?

I know, I've already written about this a little in an earlier post, but recently I watched an excellent documentary, by team Ken Burns, that was less a balanced view of the man, and more of a love letter.  So what, if Franklin couldn't keep his dick in his pants, and basically abandoned his common law wife with all their children? OK, that's a bit of an overstatement, but essentially those are the bare facts.  And, who cares that old Jeffie, that building and loan pal, had an affair with a 14 year old slave, at the age of 41?  Well, hey, they were in Paris, and it is after all it is the city of love.

To the best of my knowledge, Adams never fucked around on Abigail, although he did leave her for long periods of time during the revolutionary years.  He was also an indifferent parent.  He was arrogant (but then, perhaps he had a right to be proud), and it was generally agreed that this was not a likeable man.  OK.  Perhaps I am fixating, but to my knowledge, Adams never screwed a teenager.

How do we honor the legacy of these men? Statues.  Busts.  Paintings.  Monuments.

If you don't know what I mean, check this out:

The Jefferson Memorial:

And you might recognize this:

Oh, what a tribute to Washington's ... umm ... well, you know.

And this:

And, this:

Uh, what?

Huh?

Sheeeiiit.

And how about the most famous one, 

Yeah, I know.

I'll never forget the first real sight I had of this memorial.  Well, sort of.  It was in the movie "Logan's Run", and the two main characters came up to the ruined, well temple really, of perhaps our most beloved and reviled president.

That's Michael York, and Jenny Agutter standing far below.  But, this image becomes as iconically American, as the Statue of Liberty.

Why are some men revered, while others are not? Well, this is something of an unanswerable question.  How, indeed, can anyone predict such things? Through a combination of both magic and experience, I suppose.  

I can only say, that once I became aware of the tangled stories of Franklin and Jefferson's life, I began to question why they were in fact so honored, etc., I was quickly told to quiet down, and asked when had I grown into such an old fuddy duddy? I found that I could not get past certain things in the lives of these two men.  The contradictions in both cases, proved to be too great for my (rather conservative) moral sensibilities.

I always remember Sally Hemmings.  I always remember Franklin's infidelity towards his children and common law wife.  Yes, I am aware that these are isolated instances, but when you stand back and look at the entire life of each man, these events and behaviors become indicative of a larger character.  At least for me, anyway.

It wasn't Adams who owned slaves, although both Franklin and Jefferson did.  Washington did as well. Franklin let his go, after a number of years.  In his last will and testament, Washington freed all of his slaves.  While Jefferson tried to follow this example when he died, his debts were too great, and his slaves had to be sold at auction.  The only slaves who escaped, were Sally Hemings and the children she bore him.  This wasn't much of a contradiction, when you consider that this is the man who wrote Notes on the State of Virginia. Why is it that so many people in our country aren't aware of this pernicious document? No, the legend of Jefferson towers above the reality of the man.  Here is the architect of the Declaration! This is the dude who bought the Louisiana Territory from France for a couple strands of beads! Not really.  It ended up being about 2.5 cents per acre, but hey, Napoleon was desperate for money.

Jefferson is the guy who also wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident:  that all men are created equal...and that each are endowed with unalienable rights..."  Oh yeah.  I guess you know where those words are from.

I think that the real answer lies in the likeability and charisma of both Jefferson and Washington.  These men were pretty.  They were tall.  They had an affable manner.  Hell, people just adored them.  Adams, on the other hand, was short.  He was arrogant.  His wife was too intelligent, and many felt that she had too much influence upon him.  He was pragmatic.  And, he wasn't terribly cute.  

Now, did Adams have any skeletons? Well, yes.  There were two bills he signed into law during his presidency--the Alien and Sedition Acts.  At the time, these laws were deemed necessary, in order to placate a congress which seemed determined to block him at every turn.  

These laws raised the residency requirements for citizenship from 5 to 14 years, authorized the president to deport "aliens," and permitted their arrest, imprisonment, and deportation during wartime. The Sedition Act made it a crime for American citizens to "print, utter, or publish...any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the government.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20a%20Federalist,imprisonment%2C%20and%20deportation%20during%20wartime.

You can see where this might be a tad problematic for the public to digest.  Yet, the pressure from Congress for Adams to sign the bills, was intense.  It also came primarily from guys like Alexander Hamilton (schmuck), who disliked it when Adams displayed any independence while he was president.  But then, obedience was never John's strong suit.  

I also think Adams knew that these laws might be twisted in the future, setting dangerous precedents for potential infringement of  individual liberty, and freedom of speech.    Perhaps he did, and decided that there was no political alternative.  Ultimately, it's difficult to make a judgement;  how many awful decisions have been made due to political necessity? Lots, and most of them were rarely for the public good.  I believe he was aware of the dangerous precedent--he was far too good a lawyer.

So, when we consider the presidencies of all three men honestly, we can look at length:  Jefferson and Washington served two terms, while Adams was voted out of office after one.

Wait.  We have to talk about the tactics used in the presidential election between Adams and Jefferson.  If memory serves, it was 1799.  There was skulduggery on both sides, with a minion supporting Adams, discussing Jeff's secret relationship with "Dusky Sally".  Seriously, that's what he called her.  It is not known for certain whether this guy acted without Adams' knowledge.  I think that he did, because it was simply not a tactic he would have used against an opponent.

Jeff, on the other hand, used the now unpopular Alien and Sedition Acts as his ammo against Adams, and believe me, this was effective with a lot of voters.  He also advocated for the rapid expansion of the country, another issue that made him popular.  With a burgeoning population, whites were getting desperate to go West.  The following passage also shows how Jefferson felt that the needs of whites for more land, was more important than the Indians' right to inhabit their homeland.

...as they become better farmers, they will be found useless and even disadvantageous. while they are learning to do better on less land, our increasing numbers will be calling for more land, and thus5 a coincidence of interests will be produced between those who have lands to spare and want other necessaries,6 and those who have such necessaries to spare and want lands. this commerce then will be for the good of both,

excerpt from a letter to Benjamin Hawkins, from Thomas Jefferson.  For the full text, go to https://www.commonlit.org/en/texts/excerpts-from-thomas-jefferson-s-writings-on-american-indians

 

Huh.

Not quite what one expects from an architect of the Revolution.

As indicated by this letter, Jefferson was also an advocate for the existing Indian policy of assimilation.  This was exactly what it sounds like:  his fervent wish and belief was that for the survival of the Indians, they needed to essentially mate with the white race, thus blending the "superior" aspects of both.  Shit.  I mean, these were people, not livestock.  Again, I refer you to the passage from Notes on the State of Virginia, I quoted in an earlier post.

What about Franklin? Well, his attitudes towards people of color was a tad more paternalistic:

[whites are] To instruct, to advise, to qualify those, who have been restored to freedom, for the exercise and enjoyment of civil liberty… and to procure for their children an education calculated for their future situation in life

 https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22664-slavery-is-such-an-atrocious-debasement-of-human-nature-that

Now, to be fair, Franklin does decry the 'peculiar institution' of slavery in the same document.

And what about the illustrious general of our Revolution?

Well, he didn't exactly let his slaves go, when they escaped Mt. Vernon:

https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-washington-slavery/ 

Yet, there is some evidence to suggest that his attitudes on slavery modified as he got older:

I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase: it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by the legislature by which slavery in the Country may be abolished by slow, sure, & imperceptible degrees.

https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/washingtons-changing-views-on-slavery/

I don't know...maybe Washington realized how divisive would become, between the North and the South.  There is every indication that his fellow Southerners were aware of this potential.  I think about how such attitudes were reflected in this hokey number from one of my favorite movies, 1776:

 OK.  I know it's Hollywood, but I've always thought it to be rather accurate in terms of  broader Southern attitudes towards slavery.  Some did question it, but the financial considerations were simply too great for landowners.  After all, wasn't if Jefferson who said that slavery was like "taking a wolf by the ears"?

What about Adams? Check out what one historian says:

The senior Adams decried the institution as a “foul contagion in the human character” and as “an evil of colossal magnitude” and said the American Revolution would never be complete until all slaves were free. Despite being personally opposed to slavery, Adams did not support most attempts at abolitionism during America’s fragile infancy and said he preferred a more gradual approach. He did, however, offer encouragement to abolitionists who sought a more sudden end to the practice, writing: “(I) wish you success in your benevolent endeavors to relieve the distress of our fellow creatures, and shall always be ready to cooperate with you, as far as my means and opportunities can reasonably be expected to extend.”

https://thehill.com/changing-america/opinion/506782-anti-slavery-revolutionaries-who-practiced-what-they-preached/

While suspicious and distrusting the effect of Abolitionism on the unity of the new country, Adams never owned a slave.  He might not have exactly recognized the equality of all people, but he never owned slaves.  

I'll leave you to think on it, shall I?