Transcription
Is a story that every nationalist historian uses to save Thomas Jefferson from himself. It's a key moment that supposedly proves, despite being a lifelong enslaver, that he was, like the rest of the patriots in the band, a tragic abolitionist at heart. It's the story of his failed attempt to ban slavery in 1784 in the Western Territory. But the real story isn't about his noble failure. It's about his stunningly successful lie.
Welcome to today's edition of the Haters Guide to the Founding Fathers and why that matters. I'm Dad Sturmer. I'm an American scholar of the American Revolution and resistance history at the University of Southern Denmark. Let's start with talking about resistance history as a process. Get the boring stuff out of the way first. Trust almost no one. This is kind of our organizing principle for resistance history. Trust almost no one. Push back on almost everything. All authority is to be questioned.
I've been finishing my chapter of resistance history of the United States on the Underground Railroad as a clandestine resistance network. And then in the process, I've had to explain the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and its genealogy, which takes me back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the only outright federal ban on slavery until the 13th Amendment, 80 years. But to tell that story, you have to look at why a fugitive slave clause was tucked into that ordinance in the first place, which is the forerunner of all the rest of the fun. It was a price for pairing it with a total ban on slavery in the territory. And that brings us to one of Thomas Jefferson's many, many unconvenient truths. Or maybe maybe they were convenient untruths.
The goal of resistance history isn't to replace one ism with another. After all, it's simply to get the story right so that anyone trying to understand the world, you and the way that world relates to ours is at least working from the truth. Especially when it comes to most important questions. And in breaking down the nationalist narrative of the American Revolution, a narrative in high gear these days, no question is more important than slavery. Why? Because the story of the United States is supposed to be that of a virtuous nation founded on universal principles of freedom and liberty for all. And that story gives America then and now a unique role in world affairs that sets it above everyone else by nature. It's the basis of a whole bunch of nasty isms like American exceptionalism and originalism which use a clean cozy past to justify some pretty miserable dirty things in the present. But that comfortable narrative has an uncomfortable slavery problem.
To protect the story, nationalist narratives, whether they know it or not, in mainstream media and much of academia, have developed two main strategies. Strategy one, ignore it. It's the so what school. This is the 1776 commission farright I'm a racist, don't at me version. You can see it in a project like the 1776 commission report and on display right now at the official White House history site for the upcoming 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. And you can see it in the academic history of Gordon Wood. The preferred method is to not mention slavery at all. If you do, it has to be in a positive sense. And you're forced to, you have to argue that the founders laid the groundwork for emancipation. Failing that, it just throws slavery into the winds of moral relativism. Everyone did it. So they were just men of their time. Some even go so far as to say that slavery wasn't bad at all. I have personally heard that interpretation in Mount Vernon, the one going on Prageru, right? Enslaved people were better off under the kind patriots than they were in freedom because life in Africa was terrible and life as a free black person in New England was awful. Life with the kindly George and Martha Washington was much much better. And most enslaved people liked it that way. You hear this more often than you might think. And if you're Gordon Wood, you swing back. You mostly ignore it even in a 700page doors stop about early American history. This is his book Empire of Liberty to cover all of that. But then you launch into how anti-slavery forces boosted by the revolution are what actually produced racism in America as a defense mechanism for slavery. The revolution had perverse consequences. It forced those southerners who chose to retain slavery to fall back on the alleged racial deficiencies of blacks as a justification for an institution that hitherto they had taken for granted and had never before needed to justify. The anti-slavery movement that arose out of the revolution inadvertently produced racism in America. It's their fault. Wow. But the takeaway is always the same. Yes, they were enslavers, but so what? Cue Yankee Doodle and let's go at look at George Washington's tent. Look, canvas.
Strategy two is segregated. The yes, but school. This is by far the most common strategy with the greatest hole in academic history. And that's kind of centerleft soft nationalist history. This is the yes, they were enslavers, but they felt bad about it and you should too school. You see it everywhere. Pick up a biography of Washington or Jefferson and you will likely find chapters covering their love of fox hunting or fine wines or their glorious friendships and then one single chapter dedicated to their relationship with slavery. You can skip it if you want. They hope you do. Most writers and filmmakers seem to want to too. And then just get back to Jefferson in books or Washington in military uniforms. It's much more fun. You visit their historic sites, you know, like Mount Vernon and Montichello and you get the same exact treatment. Check the box that you've mentioned slavery. see that exhibit over there if you're interested or go on that other tour. That will be 24 bucks, please. Then quickly move on to what you really want to talk about. Privileged white people busy enjoying their privileges. And if you're really fortunate, look, there is a person dressed up as a privileged white person enjoying their privileges. It's like Jane Austin. Not really much of a nod to the fact that slavery not only made their lives possible, that these men spent more time involved with slavery and managing that with any other pursuit. Not law, not the military, not farming, managing the forced labor of other people. And the interpretation is always the same. Always, always, always. Yes, they were enslavers, but they were torn. They were principled men of the Enlightenment, so they were deeply conflicted. And by the way, they tried to do something about it, but insert whatever complication here, something got in the way, and they just couldn't. But they really, really wanted to. Sometimes it just spins into these ridiculous abstractions about how the tension between slavery and freedom is a problem for all Americans to deal with. It's a legacy. It's our original sin. So you should feel guilty about it, too. Not guilty enough to do anything about it, of course, but buy another book as a kind of penance. The end result is the same. The history of slavery is segregated so that it can be diminished. That's it for Sally Hemings. Now on to Jefferson's Head and Heart Letter. How about that? Mariah Causeway. This rehabilitates them before the crime is even fully admitted and skids the way to the gift shop.
The result of both strategies is the same. The history of slavery is segregated, diminished, and conditioned into being largely irrelevant. Slavery was not central to their lives. Therefore, it wasn't central to their history. Therefore, it should not be central to yours. And there is no figure more important to that story than Thomas Jefferson. And for one inescapable reason. He wrote the Declaration of Independence. He was a flawed founder, a tragic patriot who reflects America's founding contradictions. You get the idea. And in Jefferson's story, there is one moment that every storyteller latches on to because it is the holy grail for the deeply conflicted patriot narrative. Jefferson's failed attempt to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory in 1784. Now, there are other moments generally bundled into that, right? For Jefferson, it's the language he included in the draft of the Declaration of Independence that condemned the slave trade, blaming it all on George III that got kicked out before they got to the final version. For Washington, it's that lie that he freed all of his enslaved people in his will. He didn't. But for the story about principled founders who tried to do something about slavery and just couldn't, the 1784 moment is the key because it performs a critical function. For those who need a principled founder who tried to do something about slavery but just couldn't for reasons beyond his capacity, this is that moment. So Ken Burns, John Meechum, Joseph Ellis, pick one. They all use it for this exact purpose. If you have your favorite biography of Thomas Jefferson, pick it up and look this up and see exactly how they deal with it because they all do. And the story gets better because of what Jefferson himself said about it. He was first and foremost his best mythmaker. He claimed that his proposal would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country. Thus, we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment. He actually said that just a year later about that proposal of his, and it did tragically lose by one vote. Jefferson's brave, principled attempt to end slavery failed, proving that nothing could be done about it. Cue a weeping violin.
Except that's not what happened. Here's the scoop. After the Revolutionary War, the Confederation Congress had to organize the new western territory, the land that would become Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota. The task was assigned to a committee of three led by Jefferson. And his plan included an important provision, right, a ban on slavery in that territory after the year 1800. Now, that was new even in the way um and kind of a big deal. The years of the revolution had been pretty silent when it came to anything that undermine slavery. So, good on him for that. But, as Jefferson lamented, it did lose by one vote. One of the New Jersey delegates was sick and couldn't show up to swing the state into the yes column. So, the language was deleted. Cue the melodrama. Heaven was silent. Nothing could be done.
But here is where resistance history enters the chat with a whole bunch of people you have never heard of who apparently made heaven wake up. Timothy Pickering, a Massachusetts patriot, was all in on the promise of the revolution and had no patience for Jefferson's proposal. Why allow slavery to pour into the territory for a generation only to then try and ban it? Enslavers were already rushing into Kentucky and Tennessee and salivating at the possibilities of southern Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Did anyone really think they would get there and just stop in 16 years? Pickering knew Jefferson's plan was a fantasy built on a lack of conviction. So Pickering told his friend Rufus King, who was a member of the Confederation Congress, to do something about it. They were fighting an uphill battle against ending slavery where it already was. Too many white people were scared of even the idea of free black people. Fine, that's a different battle. But this one, this one they could win. This was a once in a-lifetime chance to set a precedent for the states that would emerge from there. It was the test of whether they meant what they said when they adopted the Declaration of Independence. Were those truths self-evident or not? Pickering says this. Did he believe them or not? If enslaved people were introduced into the territory, as Jefferson would have allowed, we can never forgive ourselves. For God's sake, he wrote, "Let one more effort be made to stop the extension of slavery there and ban it from ever starting." This is the kind of letter you want to see out of your founders. This is the kind of fight you want to see out of your resistance leaders. And Rufus got the message. He stripped the after 1800 language from Jefferson's proposal and pushed it through. The stronger message passed unanimously. Yes, he and Nathan Dayne had to combine it with a clause to allow the recapture of enslaved people running for their freedom. But enslavers could try get getting their dogs across the Ohio River and the fields of central Ohio in the winter. People were already thinking about this thing we call the Underground Railroad. But scoreboard, they banned slavery in what became five states. And then each of those states banned it in their constitutions. And those five states, the score of the old big 10 was the spine of the free union that would eventually crush slavery. You want heroes? Look at Pickering and King. You want legacy? How about that? They stood up, took the declaration almost literally and said, "Do we believe this or not? If we do, then we have to do this. Ban slavery and we have to do it now." And they won. And so did we because of that.
But ask yourselves, why doesn't anyone talk about this? Why is the fact that others took up the fight, made it count, and succeeded? Why is it at best a footnote in Jefferson's melodrama? He could lie, which he did, and say that his proposal would have prevented the expansion of slavery when it actually allowed it. It could also imply that it could never be ended after he tried, when others wouldn't accept his defeat and did it, and showed that with enough will, something could have been done about slavery. So, why protect Jefferson and obscure the more powerful story? Well, the answer is nationalism. Every nationalist project, from the overt fairy tales of the right to the subconscious soft nationalism of the left, is built on a foundation of weaponized history. History is not just a story to them. It's their central tool for justifying authority, demanding obedience, and manufacturing a virtuous origin story that makes their power feel inevitable and just. A virtuous nation requires virtuous founders. And so, the truth must be shaped to fit that need. This is why the job of resistance history is not merely to correct the record, but to tear down narrative structures. The Jefferson myth isn't just a factual error. It's a loadbearing wall for American exceptionalism. Provides a critical absolution for the founding generation on the question of slavery. So, the voices of Timothy Pickering and Rufus King must be silenced in that story because their victory proves the founders could act decisively, which collapses the entire tragically constrained excuse. Resistance history finds the authentic stories of defiance in the past, the loud, inconvenient voices of people like Pickering, and uses them as a lever to break the nationalist narrative in the present. Telling the story isn't just an academic exercise. It's an act of defiance against the authorities who still use Jefferson's lie to prop up their power today.
So, let me know what you think. [Applause] Yeah. Yeah. [Applause]