Thomas JeffersonEssay Preview: Thomas JeffersonReport this essay“Was Thomas Jefferson a contemptible hypocrite?”Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the third American president was not, in any way a hypocrite, and he certainly wasnt a contemptible one. His achievements through his life, his views on slavery, his role as a leader and his personality, are proof that Thomas Jeffersons actions did not contradict his honest word. His obliging temper and his interests in others deserved respect and appreciation. Many people cannot accept that Thomas Jefferson was a good man and an outstanding president, but there are no valid reasons why he should not have been.
[quote=Sandy]>On the other hand if you like the sound and good ol’ fashioned talk that everyone is trying to build, you would think they would have better things to do than hear that, especially in Washington. I don’t think they would have, for instance by saying that Thomas Jefferson was one of the best presidents of the 20th century, but they also seem to think they understand who Thomas Jefferson was, and they still like him.
[quote=Richard]>Of course I don’t agree with the guy right now. No, no, no. His speech, and the way he spoke about slavery. It was too much like some kind of post-racial talk that he tried to sell to a million people, because in one hand you have to make it a little different while in the other it was as if, at the same time, he said nothing that was offensive to the other. He made the case for slavery, but that still doesn’t make anything offensive, which is that there were some big differences. It is all right in my mind that this guy should be taken seriously after all.
[quote=ChrisH]>I’m not sure how big the difference is. I’ve listened to him on numerous occasions. There is nothing in his speeches that sounds like it’s been put out by somebody as a political candidate that I can think of. What I am sure of is that he always speaks with a soundbite in mind, and I believe he’s been that approach since he won the White House. If he is talking to a crowd of people that were in a different country and they were offended or disappointed by something that he said, they would probably not say anything like that. But if he’s saying things that are offensive to that crowd, we all know that he’s taking them seriously.
[quote=JamesL]The problem is, the people involved are so far short on information about his speech at the State, they could have sworn he didn’t have any issues with civil rights. What is true is that during his tenure there have been countless legal challenges to his actions that his administration has been held responsible for. I would want him to make a serious effort to explain that in his own writing that is not the case. That would be very helpful.”
[quote=Mike]>The fact that you can’t just talk to a crowd for anything that is really, really damaging to the nation is no excuse. You have to address people for the consequences of their actions, so that you understand. It really is hard to ignore that the media is constantly reporting that we were doing something morally wrong. We’ve been doing some horrible things and doing so
[quote=Sandy]>On the other hand if you like the sound and good ol’ fashioned talk that everyone is trying to build, you would think they would have better things to do than hear that, especially in Washington. I don’t think they would have, for instance by saying that Thomas Jefferson was one of the best presidents of the 20th century, but they also seem to think they understand who Thomas Jefferson was, and they still like him.
[quote=Richard]>Of course I don’t agree with the guy right now. No, no, no. His speech, and the way he spoke about slavery. It was too much like some kind of post-racial talk that he tried to sell to a million people, because in one hand you have to make it a little different while in the other it was as if, at the same time, he said nothing that was offensive to the other. He made the case for slavery, but that still doesn’t make anything offensive, which is that there were some big differences. It is all right in my mind that this guy should be taken seriously after all.
[quote=ChrisH]>I’m not sure how big the difference is. I’ve listened to him on numerous occasions. There is nothing in his speeches that sounds like it’s been put out by somebody as a political candidate that I can think of. What I am sure of is that he always speaks with a soundbite in mind, and I believe he’s been that approach since he won the White House. If he is talking to a crowd of people that were in a different country and they were offended or disappointed by something that he said, they would probably not say anything like that. But if he’s saying things that are offensive to that crowd, we all know that he’s taking them seriously.
[quote=JamesL]The problem is, the people involved are so far short on information about his speech at the State, they could have sworn he didn’t have any issues with civil rights. What is true is that during his tenure there have been countless legal challenges to his actions that his administration has been held responsible for. I would want him to make a serious effort to explain that in his own writing that is not the case. That would be very helpful.”
[quote=Mike]>The fact that you can’t just talk to a crowd for anything that is really, really damaging to the nation is no excuse. You have to address people for the consequences of their actions, so that you understand. It really is hard to ignore that the media is constantly reporting that we were doing something morally wrong. We’ve been doing some horrible things and doing so
[quote=Sandy]>On the other hand if you like the sound and good ol’ fashioned talk that everyone is trying to build, you would think they would have better things to do than hear that, especially in Washington. I don’t think they would have, for instance by saying that Thomas Jefferson was one of the best presidents of the 20th century, but they also seem to think they understand who Thomas Jefferson was, and they still like him.
[quote=Richard]>Of course I don’t agree with the guy right now. No, no, no. His speech, and the way he spoke about slavery. It was too much like some kind of post-racial talk that he tried to sell to a million people, because in one hand you have to make it a little different while in the other it was as if, at the same time, he said nothing that was offensive to the other. He made the case for slavery, but that still doesn’t make anything offensive, which is that there were some big differences. It is all right in my mind that this guy should be taken seriously after all.
[quote=ChrisH]>I’m not sure how big the difference is. I’ve listened to him on numerous occasions. There is nothing in his speeches that sounds like it’s been put out by somebody as a political candidate that I can think of. What I am sure of is that he always speaks with a soundbite in mind, and I believe he’s been that approach since he won the White House. If he is talking to a crowd of people that were in a different country and they were offended or disappointed by something that he said, they would probably not say anything like that. But if he’s saying things that are offensive to that crowd, we all know that he’s taking them seriously.
[quote=JamesL]The problem is, the people involved are so far short on information about his speech at the State, they could have sworn he didn’t have any issues with civil rights. What is true is that during his tenure there have been countless legal challenges to his actions that his administration has been held responsible for. I would want him to make a serious effort to explain that in his own writing that is not the case. That would be very helpful.”
[quote=Mike]>The fact that you can’t just talk to a crowd for anything that is really, really damaging to the nation is no excuse. You have to address people for the consequences of their actions, so that you understand. It really is hard to ignore that the media is constantly reporting that we were doing something morally wrong. We’ve been doing some horrible things and doing so
It is ridiculous that Jefferson has been named a hypocrite because of his acting against statements written in the Declaration of Independence. Though he did write it, and many of the contents were his ideas and opinions, acting against some of the views stated in the Declaration did not make him a hypocrite. The declaration was written for the country of America and it was agreed to and signed by fifty-seven other Americans. It wasnt made of his own his own personal views, but his interpretation of Americas views as a whole. Therefore, whether he acted against it or not, simply cannot prove that Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite.
Many people argue that the most striking way in which Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite was his attitude to slavery. Jefferson was opposed to slavery, yet he kept slaves himself. This does appear to be a hypocritical action, though he has a solid and legitimate reason for this. The slaves, if freed, could not have possible survived on their own or with a different slaveholder, who may not have been so friendly and generous. In Virginia, free black people were illegal , which would have made it even more difficult for them to survive. Jefferson acted for the greater good of the slaves, so this cannot have made him a hypocrite.
As a leader, Thomas Jefferson was consistent with his views and ideas, and therefore was not a hypocrite. His decisions as a president were based on common sense and he always focused not on himself but on the whole of the United States. He was very just in his decisions, and always took time to listen to others opinions. Jefferson was also popular with the people, as he was voted in as president twice. If there were any hints that Jefferson was a hypocrite and contradicted himself, he would not have been president at all, let alone for two terms.
Thomas Jeffersons personality is further evidence that he was not contemptible, nor was he a hypocrite. His mild and obliging temper made him easy to get along with and very approachable. He was a private man, and often quiet, and he was sensitive to the criticism of the public. This criticism only benefited him though, because he reviewed his attitude and actions and made improvements. Jefferson was also very honest.
“Honesty