Not Judging Historical Figures Through Contemporary Lenses. (war, greatest, general)

[ovcatto]

This is a much sited argument when appraising the views and actions of historical figures but is it really that valid? I ask the question because when we juxtapose the views, beliefs and actions with equally renown and influential contemporaries whose views, beliefs and actions would fit within 20th century ideals the argument appears to fall short. Take for example Thomas Jefferson whose contradictory views on freedom are supposed to be viewed through the eyes of a 18th century lens are contradicted by contemporaries like Edward Coles who like Jefferson was a slave owner but chose not only to free his slaves but moved them to free soil and purchased land for their resettlement and who urged Jefferson to do the same. We then have examples like Thaddeous Stevens who in the 19th century espoused the full enfranchisement and social equality of African Americans. If Jefferson and Lincoln were the great minds of their time, what say we about Coles or Stevens? Why is it insisted that we view the likes of Jefferson or Lincoln through the lens of their time and not through the lens of their contemporaries?

[thinkalot]

I think it depends on if the act you judge was a majority opinion. You will always find a few people to hold different views in the same time period. It is only when the act is near an end and people refuse to accept the change that I use contemporary views, such as slavery in the 1850's. By that time there was quite an extensive abolitionist movement where as 70 years earlier not much of one.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by thinkalot

I think it depends on if the act you judge was a majority opinion.

Here's the rub, the individuals that I am concerned with are the majority, that's sort of why they are exemplary historical figures to begin with, the ability to reason or act in a manner that rise above the masses.

[NJGOAT]

OV, is it really fair to paint Jefferson and Coles as "contemporaries"? Jefferson was over 40 years Coles' senior. While Coles held what was becoming a more popular position in HIS day on slavery and his resistance to it, I still find that Jefferson's views were inline with prevailing thoughts during HIS day. If we follow the idea of generations lasting roughly 20 years, these men were over 2 generations apart in their thinking. My father was nearly 45 when he had me and despite us living at the same time, we certainly have divergent views on many topics. Not just the normal father/son differences, but things that are obviously generational.

Stevens and Lincoln is a tougher one, but I would offer that Stevens shared a rather minority view on many topics. He was the "radical/extreme" version of Lincoln's thoughts. The only comparison I could think of would be like people 150 years from now comparing the views of Obama to those of John Olver and then criticizing Obama for not being 'progressive' enough.

[Snowball7]

This question is actually among the greatest controversies
in the subject of history. It is especially relevant in analysis
of times dimmed to present memory.
One illustrious scholar whose writings and theses
probes questions such as this is Michel Foucault.
Very thick stuff. One of my professors loved his books.
If one is to seriously engage this type of question, other
fields of study intertwine, not just history.

[Grandstander]

One hundred years from now there might be someone doing archival research into commonly held attitudes of the early 21st Century and using a preserved version of this forum as evidence. Such a person will uncover what to he or she seems shocking indifference to a social problem which since our time, has been remedied because altered perceptions decided that it was in need of a remedy.

Each generation in our society has expanded the moral umbrella to cover more and more dynamics. One hundred years ago you would have had no problem finding people who took for granted institutions such as child labor. Two hundred years ago you would have found common approval of concepts like debtor's prison.

Do you currently feel like a moral abomination because you aren't out there calling for an end to all exploitation of animals for labor or sport? Do you view yourself as morally inadequate because you don't support universal healthcare provided by the government? Are you presently a bad person because reject ideas such as assisted suicide? Are you a cruel person because you aren't fighting to overturn all laws associated with victimless crimes?

Please....there is no need to argue whether or not any of the above will represent moral changes in the future, they are but suggested examples of how the moral climate might be altered in the future. Here and now we are taking for granted some things which in the future will make us look bad for having taken them for granted in the here and now. The alternative would be to believe that all morality is presently settled and no changes will be taking place in the future. Does that seem likely?

The point in all this is that if we are always applying modern morality when judging the past, nearly everyone comes off as immoral. In fact they felt the same way that we do now, generally satisfied that things are as they should be. If they were bad people, then by extension, we are bad people and everyone will always be bad people until the day arrives when everyone is perfectly moral and there are no remaining issues.

[ovcatto]

[quote=NJGOAT;29200165]OV, is it really fair to paint Jefferson and Coles as "contemporaries"? Jefferson was over 40 years Coles' senior. While Coles held what was becoming a more popular position in HIS day on slavery and his resistance to it, I still find that Jefferson's views were inline with prevailing thoughts during HIS day. If we follow the idea of generations lasting roughly 20 years, these men were over 2 generations apart in their thinking. My father was nearly 45 when he had me and despite us living at the same time, we certainly have divergent views on many topics. Not just the normal father/son differences, but things that are obviously generational.[quote]

It may be an imperfect comparison but I've only just recently become aware of Coles so perhaps that might account for my proffering him as an example. But what would be the unfairness of citing others such as Aaron Burr, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, to say nothing of Revolutionary propagandist Thomas Paine.

It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.

John Jay, 1786

I need say hardly anything in favor of the Intellects of the Negroes, or of their capacities for virtue and happiness, although these have been supposed by some to be inferior to those of the inhabitants of Europe. The accounts which travelers give of their ingenuity, humanity and strong attachments to their parents, relations, friends and country, show us that they are equal to the Europeans.… All the vices which are charged upon the Negroes in the southern colonies, and the West Indies, such as Idleness, Treachery, Theft and the like, are the genuine offspring of slavery, and serve as an argument to prove, that they were not intended, by Providence, for it.

Benjamin Rush, On Slavekeeping (1773)

To Americans:

That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising; and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, to every principle of Justice and Humanity, and even good policy, by a succession of eminent men, and several late publications.

Our Traders in MEN (an unnatural commodity!) must know the wickedness of the SLAVE-TRADE, if they attend to reasoning, or the dictates of their own hearts: and such as shun and stiffle all these, wilfully sacrifice Conscience, and the character of integrity to that golden idol.

The Managers the Trade themselves, and others testify, that many of these African nations inhabit fertile countries, are industrious farmers, enjoy plenty, and lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another; and that these inoffensive people are brought into slavery, by stealing them, tempting Kings to sell subjects, which they can have no right to do, and hiring one tribe to war against another, in order to catch prisoners. By such wicked and inhuman ways the English are said to enslave towards one hundred thousand yearly; of which thirty thousand are supposed to die by barbarous treatment in the first year; besides all that are slain in the unnatural ways excited to take them. So much innocent blood have the managers and supporters of this inhuman trade to answer for to the common Lord of all!

Thomas Paine, 1775

If these are the words of not only Jeffersons peer but also of those who we must count as founders of this nation, why we must refrain from judging Jefferson's not only from the lenses of contemporary values but those values imminently present and expressed during his time?

Stevens and Lincoln is a tougher one, but I would offer that Stevens shared a rather minority view on many topics. He was the "radical/extreme" version of Lincoln's thoughts. The only comparison I could think of would be like people 150 years from now comparing the views of Obama to those of John Olver and then criticizing Obama for not being 'progressive' enough.

Oh come on, I expect far so much more from you than this. The question isn't about whether this historical figure should have been this or that but rather what I consider to be constructed rationalizations which preclude students of history from objectively characterizing the behaviors, views, policies of historical figures because they shouldn't be "judged" by contemporary values, values that I would argue have their roots in antiquity.

We should be able to say that Jefferson was a hypocrite regarding the meaning of inalienable rights, that Lincoln was racist, albeit one whose views were in a state of progressive evolution, without being cautioned that "we have to view them as men of their times" when there were men of "their times" would be as appropriate today as the day that they spoke them. To do otherwise is not to discuss history but to rather to sanction mythology.

Jefferson spoke of individual liberty, and his contribution to our concepts of freedom is important, but so is his silence of action as important to the shape of American history. As long as we deify, and that is the key word, the Jeffersons, the Lincolns all other men who either did not live up to their own ideals much less those of their contemporaries, what real lessons are to be gleaned by future generations.

Today, we are confronted by the incessant drum beat of arguments over the "intent" of the "Founders" for some, this argument rise to the level of deism, as if their words and intentions were holy writ. But the truth is they were mere men, and all too often flawed men. If we cannot judge them by even the moral clarity of their own contemporaries how can we honestly evaluate their foundational words and deeds historically much less how to apply them to contemporary issues if we rest continue to provide questionable historical alibis?

[ovcatto]

Damn that was long

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Damn that was long

Yes it was...but very good.

I did offer a lazy response that really didn't address your macro point.

Ultimately, I don't think we are of all that different schools of thought on this one. On the topic of Jefferson we are in complete agreement. I have stated on many occasions that Jefferson was a hypocrite. Jefferson's hypocrisies and the study of them could and do fill volumes. However, Jefferson was not among the "minority" in his views at the time. The issue of slavery was a constant from the beginning of the US. Jefferson was very typical of the attitudes of his southern contemporaries. However, that does not mean that another large group thought the entire institution was repulsive.

So, which group of contemporaries do we compare him to? Do we compare him to the views and attitudes of other southern slave holders or do we compare him to the views and attitudes of anti-slavery northerners? Is the decision for the comparison based solely upon which school of thought prevailed in our current world?

In the case of Lincoln, his views were most similar to the majority of his contemporaries who were anti-slave. At the same time Lincoln was struggling with the progression of his views, a minority on "his side" were far more progressive. However, at the same time there were plenty of "anti-Lincolns" in the South who vociferously argued the case for slavery. These were also Lincolns contemporaries.

I ask again, is the comparative or analysis limited solely to focusing on the school of thought that ultimately prevailed in our world?

What you are doing is making the comparative argument based on what is now viewed as "right". Jefferson was a hypocrite, just look at how progressive his 'contemporaries' were on the topic of slavery. Lincoln was a racist, just look at how his more progressive 'contemporaries' viewed African Americans. In each case, you are choosing to judge the person in question based on the school of thought in their time that eventually proved itself right based on our standard.

Your macro question though is "what is a student of history to do"? To that my answer would be to look at all sides and primary thought schools there were relating to a particular topic. Some viewed Jefferson as a hypocrite even in his own day. Some would have been repulsed by Lincoln's views on the capabilties of African Americans in Lincoln's own day. The general objective is to place the figure in question into the context of their own times and see where they fit in with the mix. The incorrect method would be to project where they stood relative to what we now perceive as having been right.

On the question of how we place and use their words and works, the same must be done. We need to place them into the context of their time. Some of the writing, while reaking of hypocrisy still has immense value from a philosophical/social science standpoint. In that light, I think viewing why they wrote what they wrote within the context of their own time helps us separate the wheat from the chaffe in determining what ideas we will carry forward to our time. I agree that the seeming "deification" of these men by some is a problem. Their words are not "holy writ" and more than that, they know and acknowledge themselves that they are not. So, while we can divine inspiration from what they wrote in terms of core ideas and values that may apply to our time, ultimately they recognized that the world is in a constant state of progression. Their greatest gift was that they did not carve their ideas in stone, but treated them as being fluid, evolutionary and changable.

[Pi64]

I think it depends. Someone who approved of slavery and lived in a time and place where only one percent of people thought slavery was wrong should, I think, be judged differently that someone who also approved of it but lived in a time and place where 40 percent thought it was wrong.